You are on page 1of 218



Research On
Open Innovation

A collection of papers on Open Innovation

from leading researchers in the eld

An Openforum Academy Publication

Research On Open Innovation



2014 OpenForum Europe Limited.

and the respective authors of each chapter.

ISBN 978-1-312-54439-0
Edited by Shane Coughlan

The contents of this book are licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) unless otherwise
stated. Learn more here:

Published by OpenForum Europe LTD

for OpenForum Academy

Research On Open Innovation

Research On Open Innovation

Research On Open Innovation

Table of Contents


An Introduction to
Research On Open Innovation

By Andrew Updegrove

Architecting the Future of Research

Communication: Building the Models and Analytics
for an Open Access Future
By Cameron Neylon

Facilitating Innovation: The Role of Standards and

Openness in the Broader Innovation Ecosyem 31
By Jochen Friedrich

Standards and Suainable Infraructures:

Matching Compatibility Strategies with Syem
Flexibility Objectives
By Tineke M. Egyedi

Four dimensions aecting policy resiance in IT

By Mathieu Paap

E-Governance in Public Sector

ICT Procurement: What is Shaping Practice in
By Bjrn Lundell

Research On Open Innovation

FOSS Governance and Collaboration: From A Good

Idea To Coherent Market Approach
By Shane Coughlan

The Open Versus Closed Debate


By Andrew A Adams

Blurring the Line between

Creator and Consumer

By Andrew Katz


Research On Open Innovation

Research On Open Innovation

Research On Open Innovation


An Introduction to
Research On Open Innovation
By Andrew Updegrove

Once upon a time, the learned of the world willingly shared

Great Ideas and discoveries among themselves, both nationally in
scientific societies, and internationally through letters, often
composed in Latin, the lingua franca of the recently enlightened
Europe of that time. The resulting advancement in a broad range
of scientific disciplines was prodigious, reaping enormous
benefits we still enjoy today.
Or, at least, thats how the idealised version goes, and in fact
much invaluable information was shared one-on-one among the
great theoreticians and investigators of the time. But this was also
the age of the Guilds, which jealously guided their knowledge,
and later on of the era in which Darwin sat on his revolutionary
theories for decades. He was only
startled into expedited
disclosure when he received a letter from a young species
collector named Alfred Russel Wallace, who was seeking the
great mans opinion of Wallaces more high level, but otherwise
consistent theory of evolution.
In truth, there has always been a tension between the making
of a discovery and the where, when and how of its sharing.
Sometimes brilliant innovations are kept secret, and used for the
sole commercial benefit of their discoverers. Other times their
description in a respected, peer-reviewed publication is the
ultimate goal. And in many cases the sharing of the discovery is
only allowed to occur after it has been protected as completely as
possible under patent law a slow and time-consuming process.
The result in each case is that the advance of knowledge and the

Research On Open Innovation

benefits for society that can follow materialise in a jerky, delayed

And yet in virtually every case discoveries are based upon the
prior revelations of others as Newton graciously phrased it,
discerned only because the discoverer stood on the shoulders of
the giants that came before. But what if all research, all
experimental results, and all theories, were exposed to the world
The enormous benefits that such a practice could provide are
almost beyond estimation. Not only might new cures for diseases
be discovered and deployed more rapidly, but fewer billions of
research dollars and countless hours of research time might be
wasted if failed tests, as well as successful ones, were reliably and
promptly reported, rather than never disclosed at all. Not only
could science advance more quickly, but the return on foundation
and tax dollars could be immeasurably greater as the same funds
were redeployed to more productive use.
With the advent of the Internet as well as almost infinite,
cheap computing power, the ability to capitalise on all forms of
openness in data sets, in research results, in source code, and
more and to benefit from the results has become too large to
ignore. The degree to which innovation could broaden and
accelerate in such an environment is almost limitless. Equally
powerfully, the degree to which data and discoveries can be
turned into products and services would provide an economic
acceleration that governments, particularly in Europe, are
beginning to realise and embrace.
Proponents of proprietary information, systems and code
might scoff that such a vision is simply another idealised
conception of scientific reality. But they would be wrong, and that
is what this book, the third in OpenForum Europes continuing
series of books on all things open, is all about.

Research On Open Innovation

Unlike the prior anthologies in this series, which primarily

included essays, Research On Open Innovation compiles full
length research papers by respected experts in their fields. In each
case, the authors take a detailed, thoroughly referenced look into
an area of scientific, commercial, legal or policy importance. In
some cases, the authors investigate a single scientific discipline or
industry sector, such as chemistry or communications. In others,
they explore a foundational element, like intellectual property
licensing, or practice, such as government procurement. Taken
together, the findings presented in these papers begin to fill in the
details of what a true open innovation-based ecosystem should
look like, and how it would operate.
In reading the work of these authors, it is to be hoped that you
will begin to think of ways that open access could accelerate your
own work, whatever it may be. And also about how much more
that work could be leveraged by others, if you were to embrace the
same commitment to openness.
Not surprisingly, this book has been made available as a free
download. We encourage you to visit the OpenForum Europe Web
site, to learn more about what
the Forum seeks to achieve in Europe, and about how you can
help advance the goal of openness wherever in the world you may



Research On Open Innovation


Andrew Updegrove is a co-founder and partner of the Boon

law firm of Gesmer Updegrove LLP. Since 1988 he has served as
legal counsel to over 135 andards development organisations
and open source foundations, mo of which he has helped
ructure and launch. He has been retained by many of the large
technology companies in the world to assi them in forming such
He has also written and spoken extensively on the topics of
consortia, andard setting and open source software, has given
teimony to the United States Department of Juice, Federal
Trade Commission, and Congressional and State legislative
committees on the same topics, and has filed friend of the court
briefs on a pro bono basis with the Federal Circuit Court,
Supreme Court, and Federal Trade Commission in support of
andards development in leading andards-related litigation. In
2002, he launched, a website intended to be
the mo detailed and comprehensive resource on the Internet on
the topics of consortia and andard setting, as well as Standards
Today, a bi-monthly eJournal of news, ideas and analysis in the
andard setting and open source areas with over 7,000
subscribers around the world. In 2005, he launched the Standards
Blog. serves over 10 million page views
He has been a member of the United States Standards Strategy
revision committee, and received the Presidents Award for
Journalism from American National Standards Initute (ANSI) in
2005. His current and pa Board service includes the Boards of
Directors of ANSI, the Linux Foundation and the Free Standards
Group, and the Boards of Advisors of HL7 and Open Source for
America. He is a graduate of Yale University and the Cornell
University Law School.

Research On Open Innovation

Architecting The Future Of Research

Communication: Building The Models
And Analytics For An Open Access


By Cameron Neylon1

We live in an exciting time. There are huge opportunities

starting to open up for more effective research communication.
The massive progress towards Open Access [1] is a core part of
this. At the same time, the tools we have to display, manipulate,
and interact with this content have become not just incredibly
powerful, but easier to use. And as the web in general provides
new kinds of services, new ways of communicating, telling
stories, and manipulating data there is a profound cultural shift
occurring as our expectations of what should be possible, indeed
what should be easy, grow.
But as this vista opens up, we also have to make choices. The
possibilities are multiplying but where should we focus our
attention? More particularly, in a world of limited research
resources where are the most important opportunities for greater
efficiency? The Open Access movement has changed from a
small community advocating for change, with successes in
specific disciplines, to the centre of research policy making. But

Reprinted from Neylon, C. (2013) PLOS Biology 11(10): e1001691. The text
is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence. The original text can
be found at and the full licence
can be consulted at

Research On Open Innovation

as we move into implementation, disagreements on details and

priorities come to the surface.
These choices and the attendant disagreements are important
and will occupy our attention for the next few years. But we also
need to look beyond them. We need to ask ourselves what our
overall priorities are for research and research communication.
And we need a framework that we can use to critique the
opportunities and costs that will arise as we look to extend the
principles of Open Access from articles to books, grey literature,
data, and materials, indeed to all the outputs of research.
Increasingly researchers, institutions, and funders will be asking
the question: with these resources for communication, how do I
maximise the value of this research? Understanding how to
answer these questions is possibly the core challenge for the next
decade of scholarly communications. To meet this challenge we
will need better frameworks to understand how scholarly
communication works in a networked environment.

Open Content And Open Resources

As the process of implementing Open Access accelerates, it is

worth reflecting on the varied underlying arguments for it. To
maximise the benefits of Open Access we must first articulate
what those benefits are, which ones we are prioritising, which are
complementary, and which may pull against each other.

The Wider Access Argument

The first and simplest argument for widening access is that the
taxpaying public deserves access to the outputs of the research
they fund. This is a powerful argument; one that is easy to express

Research On Open Innovation

and one that policy makers and politicians find compelling. The
argument comes in broadly three variants (See Box 1): reducing
the inefficiencies and redundancies that arise when researchers
themselves can't access the literature; access for the general public
and taxpayer; and access for translators and public engagement
specialists who help to communicate research to the wider


Box 1. The Three Variants of the Access Argument

The first and simplest argument for widening access is that the
taxpaying public deserves access to the outputs of the research
they fund. This argument is most effective when it concerns areas
of research that are of obvious public interest: for example,
medical science, environmental science, economics, as well as
history, literature, and languages. This argument focuses on
people, and on reading, and it places the onus of developing an
understanding of the research on the user.
A variant of this line of reasoning focuses on researchers
themselves, who often have limited access to research literature.
Funders, institutions, and researchers see the costs in time wasted
looking for information and unknowingly repeating research.
Outside the academic world, governments are increasingly
concerned about how the lack of access affects small and medium
enterprises (SMEs), with studies suggesting that the cost in lost
time and sales to SMEs is substantial [10].
A development of this argument focuses on enabling greater
comprehension, either of specific issues or of science itself, and
on ensuring that those who can translate, interpret, and re-use
research outputs have access to them. With improved access and
ability to incorporate parts of research papers in their writing,
bloggers, journalists, and public information providers are better

Research On Open Innovation

equipped to provide the layer of interpretation and synthesis that

informs the wider public.
Each of these arguments tends to focuses only on access for
reading. It is only when we consider the needs to interpreters and
synthesisers that we see a need to enable the re-use of articles.
Some argue that it is only the transmission of ideas that matter
and that re-use rights are not important. I disagree with this
viewpoint profoundly. The ideas may be enough for skilled
interpreters in specific contexts, but permitting re-use enables a
much larger group of people, and a much larger range of spaces,
to aid in this synthesis. The biggest single opportunity for
engaging the public with research is Wikipedia, the top hit for
virtually any factual web search, and containing a set of sites that
have more visitors in a day than most scholarly publishers receive
in a year. Expending effort on local engagement efforts while
failing to make research available and incorporated in Wikipedia
will frequently be the wrong use of resources.

But all of these arguments focus on an individual user and

thus they have a weakness. They don't truly recognise the benefits
that arise collectively from the development of the Internet, where
the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. To get to the
heart of the argument, and the heart of the choices we need to
make, we therefore have to lift our view to the system as a whole.

The Network Architecture Argument

The reason we are implementing Open Access today is that

our information and communications architecture has profoundly
changed. The Internet and the web have radically increased the
number of people any given person can reach, and have reduced

Research On Open Innovation

the costs of information transfer. In both cases the changes are by

orders of magnitude. And with those changes possibilities are now
in reach that simply weren't before.
Let us consider a very simple model of information diffusion.
The probability that information reaches a person who will make
use of it can be thought of as a function of three parameters. The
first of these is the total number who would be interested, i.e., the
number who would in an ideal world use it were they to have
access. The second parameter is the proportion of those interested
people who are able to find the research in the first place, i.e. the
reach of your communication tools. Multiplying these two
numbers together (the fraction that can use it times the fraction
that can find it) gives you the proportion that could use the
information. But we also need to divide this number by a third
parameterthe friction, which represents the difficulty in using
the information once you have it. The full calculation (see Box 2)
then allows us to determine the proportion of people that actually
do use it.


Box 2. Proportions of Re-use

We can express this network model with a simplified equation

that gives the proportion (or probability) of re-use:

Where: P is the probability of information reaching a place where

it can be used, or of a contribution being made to a project; I is
the overall interest, the proportion of the population that could use
the information, or could contribute; R is the reach of the

Research On Open Innovation

communication method; and F is the friction to use, meaning how

hard it is to use the information or to contribute.
The equation is an illustrationit oversimplifies a wide range of
issues but is useful for seeing how even when something is
difficult to use, such as raw medical literature, if there is a wide
interest then by simply making it accessible the impact is
significantly enhanced. It is interesting to consider what the units
of the various terms might be and whether some, particularly the
friction term, should have an exponent. A fully worked model
would also need to include multi-step and non-linear transmission
of resources to their ultimate site of application. This could likely
be treated as a Hidden Markov model [11] or as a dynamic
Bayesian network [12]. A full information theoretic analysis of the
system is left as an exercise for the informed reader.

Let's imagine that for some piece of information the level of

interest is one in a million. If the information can reach the entire
world then there are about 7,000 people who could potentially use
this information. As long as people can find the information
easily and the friction to use it is sufficiently low, we can be
confident of this work being used. On the other hand if we don't
communicate effectively or if we make it difficult to use the
information, it is easy to imagine that the user base would
diminish rapidly.
Until 2030 years ago the number of people we could reach
was limited by the costs and logistics of print distribution. This
meant that targeting was critical; finding that right few thousand
people was the main focus. If targeting them increased friction for
others (like paywalls) then that was a reasonable price to pay to
ensure that the people we knew were most interested had the
information brought to their attention.

Research On Open Innovation

The underlying promise of the web is that this concept is

upended. The Internet, the web, and finally the read-write web
have changed the number of people who can be reached from a
few hundred or a few thousand to millions or even billions. With
these numbers it can now be more efficient to take a scattergun
approach; to reach the maximum number of people and reduce
friction for all of them rather than to focus simply on targeting a
This is the effect that drives successful crowdsourcing, which
is destroying the business model of newspapers, and which has
lead to the proliferation of online communities. The level of
interest in counting insects, selling through classified ads, or
talking about some element of pop culture hasn't changed, but the
friction has decreasedclicking a browser button is easier than
joining an ecological society or getting a PhDand the reach has
increased across a threshold level that changes the nature of the
system. Many of the most successful citizen science efforts gained
critical mass because the story was picked up and transmitted by
mainstream mediareaching beyond the community of those
already engaged in a specific scientific effort.
These shifts and changes are analogous to transitions that
occur in simple networks and are easy to simulate. As the
connectivity of a network increases, there is a sharp transition that
occurs from a state where there are disconnected clusters to one in
which most nodes are connected and a single network spans the
whole system. In simple networks such as those shown in Figure
1, these transitions are highly predictable, and they occur when
the probability of each point being connected (or conversely the
friction) reaches a specific value. These are disorder to order
phase transitions, similar to the crystallisation of a solid from a
solution. And like physical phase transitions, they occur under

Research On Open Innovation

predictable conditions, despite the fact that the individual

components of the system behave in an unpredictable fashion.

Figure 1. Simulations of a simple percolation network.

A 100100 matrix was created with each position on the lattice

being given a random number between zero and one. To simulate
a simple percolation network [13] with increasing connectivity a
threshold value was raised in increments of 0.05 from zero to one.
When the value at a given position was lower than the threshold
value the position was considered connected to the four positions
around it. The threshold value is therefore the probability of
connection (or the inverse of friction). (A) Four coloured plots
show the size and shape of clusters at different threshold values
(0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8) where the cluster is coloured by its size. (B)
The total number of clusters for three independent simulations.
The plot shows an increase in the number of small clusters to a
certain level after which the number of clusters drop as they start
to connect. Overall behaviour is similar between three
independent simulations. (C) The size of the largest cluster in the

Research On Open Innovation

model. Up to a specific connection probability the simulation is

dominated by many small clusters. At a specific probability a
rapid change in size is observed as the majority of clusters
connect. Behaviour is highly consistent across three independent
simulations. The code used to generate the figures is available at:

Clearly we do not live, or do science, on a simple square

lattice. Yet many of the success stories of Open Research
approaches and widening access seem to have some similar
characteristics. In successes from the Polymath project [2],[3] to
Galaxy Zoo [4], and from successful Open Source projects to
Craigslist [5], a combination of scale and ease of use are the key
to the story. It is also possible to look at failed efforts in crowdfunding, and in citizen science and crowdsourcing and see similar
patterns. The reasons behind a lack of success can usually be
traced to a failure to reach sufficient scale, which is often in turn
associated with too much friction, preventing easy user
The proportion of reuse equation proposed in Box 2 is at
best an analogy. These simple networks however show more
promise as the beginnings of a model. They can provide an
approach to identifying system parameters that are important in
determining the system behaviour. They can provide a test-bed
where we can make comparisons with what we observe in our real
research environment and a place where we can run experiments
that we couldn't do in the real world. Models can serve different
functions in the physical and the social sciences. In the former
they provide quantitative predictions and a mental framework that
is intended to mirror the true behaviour of the system. In the

Research On Open Innovation

latter, models are more a mode of working, a means of suggesting

where to look for interesting behaviour, without necessarily being
expected to define an underlying truth.
The simple models shown here cannot yet have the status of a
quantitative model. Nor are they predictive. They do however
provide a means of understanding specific events. The successes
in Open Approaches, such as Galaxy Zoo, occur because they are
close enough to a transition to take advantage of it. In many cases
this may have been in large part due to luck. But this does not
need to be the case. If these network models are currently only
interpretative, then our aspiration must surely be to make them
sophisticated enough to obtain sufficient real world data and to
make them predictive.
If we accept the idea that these transitions exist then the
question we must ask ourselves is how do we build an architecture
that makes them as large as possible, and how do we identify how
to move towards them. In a world of limited resources where we
have to make choices what is the best way to maximise the
number of potential users and reduce friction? To make such
choices we need data and we need frameworks for decisionmaking built on models with predictive and analytical power.

The Financial Argument

The question of resources brings us to a core issue. If we are

obliged to make choices about how we communicate researchif
we must choose exactly what friction to reduce, and what people
we will commit resources to reachthen it follows that we ought
to make that choice wisely. There may be a tension between
reaching more people and the financial costs that this incurs.
For Open Access to articles at least it turns out this isn't the
case. Open Access provided by new publishers is cheaper than

Research On Open Innovation

traditional subscription publishing [6],[7] and also enables

research findings to reach more people, thereby facilitating their
re-use. Making research available through repositories can also
deliver greatly enhanced access with limited additional costs [7].
There are transitional costs involved in the shift to Open Access,
particularly the issues of paying twice as revenue streams shift
from subscriptions to other channels. But through careful
management and a balance between the repository and journal
routes the transitional costs can be minimised and massive
potential downstream savings released [6],[7]. If, and it is
admittedly a big if, we can transition via a blend of repository and
journal based Open Access to an effective market in publication
services then the transitional costs can be effectively constrained.
If we get it right then we can also bring the long-term savings
forward and use them to support more effective sharing.
The cost benefits that we can realise for Open Access articles
depend in large part on an existing funded infrastructure, an
existing platform for transmitting and managing these resources.
But if the network argument made above holds for articles then it
necessarily also applies to other kinds of research output,
particularly data, but also materials.
It is interesting that some of the strongest evidence we have
for the benefits of open approaches are for data, specifically the
data from the human genome project where the economic returns
from the publicly shared genome project were significantly
greater than those from the competing closed project [8]. This
success relied on an investment in the infrastructure for sharing
DNA sequences, an infrastructure that is now a core part of
modern biological research.
But for some other data types the platforms have yet to be
created or are currently under funded. In terms of materials,
platforms only exist for the sharing of very specific types.

Research On Open Innovation

Building the right kinds of platform can increase reach, and

reduce friction, but it also requires investment. The distinction
between data sharing and material sharing is also not as great as it
seems. And in a world where it can be cheaper to re-do an
analysis than to store the data, we need to consider seriously the
social, physical, and material infrastructure that might support the
sharing of the material outputs of research.
Global large scale data and materials sharing is almost
certainly too expensive to consider today, but we should work
hard to identify the places where it can bring the greatest benefits.
There will be arguments around public access, network
architecture, and cost to balance and consider but with limited
resources we cannot tackle the whole space immediately. But as
we reap the benefit of the transition to Open Access we need to
consider, as a community, where we can best apply the billions of
dollars that we will liberate from subscription budgets. The key
question will be how to gather the information and build the
models that will help us make those choices at the system level.
Without better data on how research outputs are being used we
will be flying blind, but obtaining better data will also require

Mapping The Future - Foundations And


If the opportunities that we have today to re-think and mould

the architecture of our communication and sharing systems are
huge, then the challenges are also significant. Resources for
research will continue to be flat or falling for the foreseeable
future as the global economy stutters towards recovery. We will
need to make difficult choices on resource allocation, and

Research On Open Innovation

particularly to understand the balance between supporting the

research itself and its communication.
These choices are not about which projects to fund or which
infrastructure to build. We are bad at picking winners and show
no signs of getting any better. The choices we should make are
rather about how to configure the systems, how to design the
processes by which we make choices, so as to optimise the overall
outcome. But at the moment we have neither the models to help
us do this design work, nor the data to test such models.
It is not simply, as Jeff Hammerbacher once pithily stated that
The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make
people click ads [9]. Those best minds also have much better
data on information flow and usage than we have in the research
community. The data we have are poor and expensive, the
analytics limited at best. Compare the sophistication that free
tools such as Google Analytics provide in dissecting how well an
advertisement with two subtly different borders performs with our
ability to understand whether citations refer to the argument in a
paper or the use of its data.
We have choices ahead of us, as well as opportunities to
deliver significant changes in our research capacity. If we get
them right. To make the right choices we need both the
frameworks to help us understand the complex systems of
research communication and much more data to test and utilise
those frameworks. We don't just need infrastructures for sharing
content and data. We need infrastructures that support the sharing
of data about the sharing process.
Ultimately, while sharing knowledge more effectively is
generally a greater public good in its own right, in the longer term
it may be that significant benefits arise from our increased ability
to understand how effectively that knowledge is being shared. The
closed systems of the past were a necessary balance between

Research On Open Innovation

reach, targeting, and resources. The tensions between these key

issues today are entirely different to what they were in a print
world. But we don't yet understand in detail how. Developing that
understanding is critical to realise the full benefits of Open
Access and Open Data in a resource limited world.


1. Joseph H (2013) The open access movement grows up: taking

stock of a revolution. PLOS Biol 11 (10) e1001686 doi:
10.1371/journal.pbio.1001686. View Article PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

2. Gowers T (2009) Is massively collaborative mathematics

p o s s i b l e ? G owe r s ' s We b l o g . Av a i l a b l e : h t t p : / / Accessed 9 August 2013.

3. Nielsen M (2013) Polymath1Wiki. Available: http://
Accessed 9 August 2013.

4. Galaxy Zoo (n.d.) Available:

Accessed 9 August 2013.

5. About, Craigslist (n.d.) Available:

about/sites. Accessed 9 August 2013.

6. CEPA LLP, Mark Ware Consulting Ltd. (2011) Heading for

the open road: costs and benefits of transitions in scholarly
communications | Report Commissioned by the RIN,
Research Libraries UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Publishing

Research On Open Innovation

Research Consortium and the Joint Information Systems

Committee. Available:
communicating-and-disseminating-research/heading-openroad-costs-and-benefits-transitions-s. Accessed 23 December

7. Swan A, Houghton J (2012) Going for Gold? The costs and

benefits of Gold Open Access for UK research institutions:
further economic modelling. Report to the UK Open Access
Implementation Group. Available:
id/eprint/610. Accessed 16 September 2013

8. Tripp M, Grueber M (2011) Economic impact of the human

genome project, Battelle Memorial Institute Report. Available:
h t t p : / / b a t t e l l e . o rg / d o c s / d e fa u l t - d o c u m e n t - l i b r a r y /
Accessed 16 September 2013

9. Vance A (2011) This tech bubble is different, Bloomberg

B u s i n e s s w e e k M a g a z i n e . Av a i l a b l e : h t t p : / /
w w w. b u s i n e s s we e k . c o m / m a ga z i n e / c o n t e n t / 1 1 _ 1 7 /
b4225060960537.htm. Accessed 16 September 2013

10. Houghton J, Swan A (2011) Access to research and technical

information in Denmark. Available:
272603/. Accessed 16 September 2013

11. Hidden Markov Model, Wikipedia. Available: http:// Accessed 16
September 2013


Research On Open Innovation

12. Dynamic Bayesian Network, Wikipedia. Available: http:// Accessed
16 September 2013

13. Percolation t heor y, Wikipedia. Available: http:// Accessed 16
September 2013


Research On Open Innovation


Cameron Neylon is Advocacy Director for the Public

Library of Science, a research biophysici and well known
agitator for opening up the process of research. He speaks
regularly on issues of Open Science including Open Access
publication, Open Data, and Open Source as well as the wider
technical and social issues of applying the opportunities the
internet brings to the practice of science. He was named as a
SPARC Innovator in July 2010 for work on the Panton Principles
and is a proud recipient of the Blue Obelisk for contributions to
open data. He writes regularly at his blog, Science in the Open.


Research On Open Innovation


Research On Open Innovation

Facilitating Innovation: The Role Of

Standards And Openness In The
Broader Innovation Ecosyem

By Jochen Friedrich

Standards can play a key role in facilitating innovation.

This is being taken into consideration by companies in
their business rategies as well as by governments
regarding their innovation rategies. Within Europe,
detailed analysis has been taken regarding the
complexities of the relationship between andardisation
and innovation. Legal changes have been made adapting
the European andardisation syem to global realities in
order to increase the potential in Europe for driving
innovation via the powerful tool of andardisation. What
is important is that the dierent roles which andards
play in this context are well analysed and underood.
Building on the boo of innovation which the internet and
the world wide web produced, there is a huge potential for
innovative technologies in the integration of technologies,
in complex syems, in the areas that are usually tagged as
smart domains. Like with the internet and the web,
andards are a critical element in these context. And
flexibility and dierentiated action will be required for
maximising the desired eects of innovation rategies and


Innovation has been identified as a key element for flourishing

economies and societies. Innovation is key for business success.

Research On Open Innovation

Companies everywhere, large and small, are reviewing their

processes as part of their transformations towards becoming better
integrated and with the objective to foster innovation in order to
increase their competitiveness. And innovation is high on the
political agendas around the globe. Back in 2009, European
Commission President Barroso gave directions for the
Commission that took office in those days: "By the end of the
Commission's next mandate, I want Europe to have become not
just a 'knowledge society', but an 'innovation society.' I plan to
make this one of my top personal priorities. Indeed, I want it to be
an important part of my legacy."2 Since then, governments and
public authorities have started or continued developing innovation
policies for supporting the ongoing and necessary social and
economic transformation processes. For sure, the issue of
promoting innovation will continue to be an important objective
for the next Commission, as well, which will get into office in
2014. An important part of both business strategies and
innovation policy activities is the relationship between innovation
and standardisation and the impact standards and standardisation
have on innovation.
Along the lines of such strategic considerations, this paper
will examine the different levels of what seems to be a complex,
perhaps even sometimes conflicting, relationship between
standardisation and innovation. It will look at the different roles
standards play in promoting innovation.
An important aspect in this respect is openness.
Standardisation is per se a move towards openness, towards
1. Jos Manuel Duro Barroso, President of the European Commission,
Transforming the EU into an Innovation Society, Speech at the first European
Innovation Summit, Brussels, 13 October, 2009, p. 4. at:

Research On Open Innovation

disseminating technologies and knowledge. Over the last two

decades this has been complemented with trends in open
innovation where businesses and governments open up their
innovation processes allowing and often even inviting outside
groups and communities to participate in the innovation cycles.
What used to be internal and top secret has changed, has become
an area for public involvement, interaction and common
development. This has had its effect on standardisation, as well,
most notably with the development and implementation of the
concept of Open Standards which is part of an overall concept
of Open Platforms and Open Ecosystems.

Innovation Is Key, Standards Are Key


Companies around the globe have put innovation into their

focus. Innovation is critical for global competitiveness and
business success. It is those companies that manage best their
innovation processes and that are most ready to transform and
adapt to a changing global environment which flourish and are
well situated for competing on the global market.
Almost a decade ago, IBM undertook a survey amongst global
CEOs on innovation.3 For this survey interviews were held with
765 CEOs, business executives and public sector leaders from
around the world4. The title of the study, expanding the
innovation horizon, is programmatic for its findings. The
2. Expanding the Innovation Horizon: The Global CEO Study 2006, IBM
Institute for Business Value. March 2006. See

Expanding the Innovation Horizon, p. 5.


Research On Open Innovation

significant changes with progressing globalisation and an

increasing degree of global integration of networked economies,
has over the last decade, increased the competitive pressure on
companies. Therefore, new ways of working, new ways of
positioning oneself, new ways of operating, new products,
technologies and services etc. need to be found, need to be
developed. And they can be developed by actively driving the
transformation of becoming a business that is fit to play within
the changing and challenging global ecosystem. Yet, what is
needed for making the transformation successful is constant
innovation on all levels:
Business model innovation matters. Competitive pressures
have pushed business model innovation much higher than
expected on CEOs priority lists. But its importance does not
negate the need to focus on products, services and markets, as
well as operational innovation.5
In other words, innovation is not a single task of getting new
technologies out, new, cool features implemented in products. It is
much more: it is looking at all levels of operation. And it is above
all in the integration of technologies to achieve an optimisation of
processes, increase knowledge about the interrelation of processes
and tasks, and about providing added value on top of already
implemented structures and processes. This is what is behind
smart or intelligent solutions. Smart city, smart grid,
intelligent water management, intelligent transport systems what
this actually means is to be innovative by transforming existing
processes adding layers and elements of intelligence in order to
optimise, gain efficiency, reduce waste.
Standardisation plays a key role in these transformation
processes promoting and enabling innovation on the various levels

Expanding the Innovation Horizon, p. 4.


Research On Open Innovation

and especially regarding the integration of technologies. By

providing open information about formats, protocols, APIs, etc.
standards allow the combination of technologies and the
incremental addition of new, innovative technology modules into
existing architectures, e.g. under the paradigm of service oriented
architectures (SOA) or with a perspective of cloud technologies
also with respect to Software as a Service (SaaS), Infrastructure
as a Service (IaaS) or Platform as a Service (PaaS) etc.
Cloud technologies as such strongly rely on open standards
and the integration of technologies. Standards provide a trusted
base for the use and implementation of technologies, enable and
ensure interoperability and portability, prevent vendor lock-in and
ensure implementability in open source:
[] if moving to the cloud locks the organization to a
particular cloud service provider, the organization will be at the
mercy of the service level and pricing policies of that provider.
With that in mind, portability and interoperability become crucial
to providing the freedom to work with multiple cloud providers.
Interoperability is concerned with the ability of systems to
communicate. In the world of cloud computing, this means the
ability to write code that works with more than one cloud provider
simultaneously, regardless of the differences between the
providers. On the other hand, portability is the ability to run
components or systems written for one environment in another
In this respect, standards fulfil a critical function regarding the
acceptability and adoption of new and innovative technologies
like the Cloud. Companies, acting as customers, see these aspects
6 Moving to the Cloud: A white paper produced by the Cloud Computing Use
Cases Discussion Group, Version 1.0, 28 February 2011, pp. 7-8 (Available at
h t t p : / / w w w. c l o u d s t a n d a r d s c u s t o m e r c o u n c i l . o r g / w h i t e p a p e rmovingtothecloud.htm).

Research On Open Innovation

and therefore request the use of standards. This increases choice

and flexibility and leaves room for new innovative offerings to
be taken up more rapidly and without high exit costs at any given
point in time in the future. In the same way the use of standards
triggers innovation because technology and service providers have
an opportunity to offer and provide innovative new technologies
to any customer due to the ability to integrate these solutions with
reduced efforts due to the use of standards based infrastructures.

I n n ova t i o n At T h e C o re O f E U
Standards Policy

On the political level in Europe the relation between

standardisation and innovation and the positive effects of
standards for promoting innovation have been analysed and
addressed by the European Commission, the Council and the
European Parliament at various instances and with some special
focus since the mid of the last decade.7 As a result, the topic of
standardisation has been raised at prominent level in the various
flagship initiatives of the current Commission and has become
part of the Commission's Europe 2020 strategy. So, for example,
the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative clearly states: Standards
play an important role for innovation. By codifying information
on the state of the art of a particular technology, they enable
dissemination of knowledge, interoperability between new
7 A little overview of the discussion up until mid 2008 is given in: Towards an
increased contribution from standardisation to innovation in Europe,
Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions, COM(2008) 133, pp. 1-2 (Available at

Research On Open Innovation

products and services and provide a platform for further

innovation.8 Not only does that stress the importance of
standards in relation to innovation and innovation policy, it also
indicates a number of different effects standards may have:
codifying state-of-the-art, disseminating knowledge, facilitating
interoperability and providing a platform for further innovation.
This builds on what the Commission had explicit addressed in the
Communication on Standardisation and Innovation from 2008:
dynamic standardisation is an important enabler of
innovation. This occurs in different ways:
(a)Standards that express the state of the art give innovators a
level playing field facilitating interoperability and competition
between new and already existing products, services and
processes. Standards provide customers with trust in the safety
and performance of new products and allow differentiation of
products through reference to standardised methods;
(b)The development of new standards is also necessary to
accompany the emergence of new markets and the introduction
of complex systems, such as the expansion of the Internet;
(c)The use of standards contributes to diffusing knowledge
and facilitating the application of technology; this may then
trigger innovation, in particular non-technological innovation in
the service sector.9

8 Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, Communication from

the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
COM(2010) 546, p. 16 (Available at n i o n / p d f / i n n o v a t i o n - u n i o n communication_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none).
9 Towards an increased contribution from standardisation to innovation in
Europe, p. 3.

Research On Open Innovation

This analysis, among other aspects, differentiates between the

use of standards on the one hand and the development of
standards on the other. Or, in other words, the codifying and
dissemination of knowledge and technologies on the one hand and
the use, implementation and platform-creation on the other hand.
Looking at Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) the Commission addressed the relation of standards and
innovation in much detail, most notably in the Digital Agenda for
Europe (DAE)10 and in the Communication on European
Standardisation.11 The special role of global ICT technologies is
also recognised in the Regulation on European Standardisation
(1025/2012).12 Acknowledging positive effects of ICT standards
for innovation the Commission has looked at the framework
conditions for making these standards available for use and
implementation in EU policies and in public procurement. While
the European standardisation system is built on the three formally
recognised European Standards Organisations (ESOs) CEN,
CENELEC and ETSI, a large number of the most relevant global
10 A Digital Agenda for Europe: Communication from the European
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2009) 245
(Available at
11 A strategic vision for European standards: Moving forward to enhance and
accelerate the sustainable growth of the European economy by 2020,
Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions, COM(2011) 311 (Available at
12 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European
Standardisation, 1025/2012 (Available at

Research On Open Innovation

standards and specifications in ICT is developed in global fora

and consortia like W3C, OASIS or the IETF. The Commission
identified the issue that the standards and specifications from such
organisations have not been available for direct referencing in EU
policies and public procurement. The Regulation contains a
process to complement the European standardisation system by
identifying standards and specifications from fora and consortia
so that they can be used in public procurement, provided that they
meet a distinct set of criteria listed in Annex II of the Regulation.
These criteria include openness, transparency, balance, etc. In
effect, this new process forms a necessary basis for a more
effective innovation policy and for improved conditions in public
procurement. It is, as it were, a precondition for the overall
direction for policy making in Europe in the area of ICT:
Europe does not yet reap the maximum benefit from
interoperability. Weaknesses in standard-setting, public
procurement and coordination between public authorities prevent
digital services and devices used by Europeans from working
together as well as they should. The Digital Agenda can only take
off if its different parts and applications are interoperable and
based on standards and open platforms.13
Following this analysis from the Digital Agenda the
Commission explicitly stresses the need of global standards and
specifications from fora and consortia in the context of innovation
policy in the Communication A strategic vision for European
standards - not in conflict, but complementary to European
standards developed by the ESOs:
In the new global era, the policy role of
andardisation process cannot be limited to supporting
European legislation. Today, andardisation is
13 Digital Agenda, p. 5.


Research On Open Innovation

increasingly happening at global level in many areas,

often, like in the field of ICT, through dynamic and fapaced fora and consortia. In this context, the rategic use
of andards on the one hand and European
andardisation on the other, are rategic assets for
securing EU competitiveness and a key tool for knowledge
dissemination, interoperability, validation of novel ideas
and promotion of innovation.14
In summary, the European Commission has developed a rather
holistic view on the relation of standardisation and innovation.
This ranges from the analysis of the interrelationship and of the
roles standards play in supporting innovation to the concrete
proposals for legal changes so that the European standardisation
system is better suited to support policy makers as well as all
stakeholders regarding innovation processes and policies. This has
been done in close cooperation with the Council. Moreover, the
new Regulation also accommodates some of the requirements
voiced by the European Parliament already in its 2010 report on
the Future of European Standardisation namely that the revision
of the European standardisation system must contribute to
innovation and that for ICT specific changes are required for
making global ICT standards and specifications available for
implementation and use in EU policies and public procurement.15
The actions taken and the legal proposals provided by the
Commission are intended to support the creation of an innovation-

14 A strategic vision for European standards, p. 4.

15 European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2010 on the future of
European standardisation (2010/2051(INI)), recommendations 3-8 (Available

Research On Open Innovation

friendly ecosystem in Europe and putting the European public

sector on the forefront.
In addition, with the implementation of the EU ICT MultiStakeholder Platform (MSP) as the central advisory body to the
European Commission on all matters relating ICT standardisation
the Commission ensures a high level of information exchange and
information flow.16 All major stakeholders in European ICT
standardisation are part of the MSP. This has global impact on
driving new topic areas that are relevant for innovation and
growth and where ICT standards play in role in supporting
innovation policy. On the level of detailed planning the
Commission works closely with the MSP on developing the EU
Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation which contains all major
areas of activity including a listing of ongoing work on the global
level and of concreted actions.17

Basic Levels Regarding The Role Of

Standards In Relation To Innovation

There is no such thing like one stringent causation on how

standards promote innovation. Much rather, standards can have
different positive effects promoting innovation in different
contexts. It is an inter-relation with some level of complexity,
depending on the technology domain and on the role which
standards play. Therefore, there may well be different
16 Decision 2011/C 349/04 of the European Commission: t/index.cfm?
17 EU Rolling Plan on ICT Standardisation:

Research On Open Innovation

requirements for an effective innovation policy which intends to

leverage the positive effects of standardisation.
Standards are a vital tool for disseminating new technologies:
For bringing a new, innovative technology to the market,
preferably the global market, standards are a key facilitator. They
make technologies available and promote their uptake. This has
always been one of the elementary benefits of standards.
Standardisation in this sense is the second step to market
success complementing the innovation process in base technology
and product development. Standardisation here is a tool based on
a clear business decision to achieve business success on the global
market. This can also be very effective for the transfer of research
results into innovative new products and offerings on the market.
Standards facilitate market access in regulatory domains:
Standards are an effective tool for complying with regulatory
requirements and thus for enabling access to markets. This
concerns for instance the areas of health and safety where
governments have specific requirements that need to be met by
standards. Ideally, and in accordance with the WTO TBT
Agreement, global standards should be applied and regional or
national barriers to trade need to be avoided. This promotes
innovations on a global scale and for global markets. And it
allows a fast and unencumbered access of innovative technologies
and offerings globally.
Standards ensure interoperability: By openly describing
interfaces, protocols, formats, etc. standards provide all necessary
information for accessing coded content and for connecting
technologies. Interoperability is a critical element of modern,
state-of-the-art, open ICT architectures and infrastructures.
Interoperability allows for a modular infrastructure design and is
at the core of Service Oriented Architectures (SOA). It increases
flexibility and choice, helps to avoid lock-in and reduces exit cost

Research On Open Innovation

for technologies. In this respect, standards and interoperability

open the way for innovative products and technologies to be
offered in competitive situations where replacement of older or
less innovative technologies can fairly easily be done. Lock-in
situations are avoided and vendors have a fair and equal chance
for competing.
Standard provide a trusted and solid technology base for
innovation to take place on the level of the implementation of
standards: Given the benefits of interoperability and the
opportunities for competing with other vendors standards
encourage innovators to develop new, innovative products and
offerings while implementing the respective standard. This means
the differentiation with other vendors' products and offerings
takes place on the level of the implementation. The standard,
however, ensures that the innovations can be brought to the
Standards facilitate the integration of technologies into
innovative systems: A large potential for innovation today is in the
integration of processes and technologies which is made possible
via combining different standards. This applies to many areas and
sectors. For example, companies increase their level of process
integration and of automatic processing of data and transactions.
Similarly, communication between parties is integrated on all
levels, be it B2B, B2C, A2A, A2B, A2C etc. Moreover, systems
and processes can be optimised via the innovative integration of
technologies. This can be seen in almost all areas and sectors, be
it eGovernment, eHealth, smart grid, intelligent transportation,
eMobility etc. Where ICT are used to optimise things and create
smarter systems standards play a key role as enabler of such
Standards allow access to coded information for innovative
add-on solutions: Not only the integration of technologies is

Research On Open Innovation

important for creating innovative, smart solutions, but also the

ability to make use of information that is coded so that this
information can be analysed and optimisation choices can be
made. Standards ensure open access to such information by
providing descriptions of the respective data structures, formats,
protocols, APIs, etc. This makes it possible for innovators to
develop new technologies that, for instance, add a new level of
intelligent layer providing added-value for systems management
and for smarter ways of optimising and doing the things that are
done. Again, examples are manifold, be it smart water supply,
smart home, smart cities, or the vast field of public sector
information (PSI) where public data available in open formats
based on standards is used in highly innovative ways leading to
new insight and improvements and providing a base for new
businesses and growth.

Strategic Considerations Regarding The

Relation Of Standardisation And

Any strategy regarding standardisation and innovation will

take these different roles standards play in enabling innovation
into account. And policy makers will look at means how they can
best provide the framework for allowing a differentiated approach
towards exploiting the full potential of standards in the context of
innovation policy. A key criterion here is the analysis where the
innovative act takes place and what its relation is towards the
As we have seen standards can play a key role in
disseminating technologies and bringing innovations to the

Research On Open Innovation

marketplace. The innovative act happened first, way before the

standardisation activity, with the development or invention of new
technologies or techniques. The transfer of technologies into
standardisation usually takes place on the basis of a clear business
case. Considerations in this context include whether the opening
up of technologies in the process of standardisation will allow for
some rewarding of the research activities and efforts spent on
developing and inventing the new technologies. The market has
developed a patent system and a patent licensing system.
Standards bodies have implemented policies on how intellectual
property rights (IPR) are handled. Licensing on Fair, Reasonable
And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions is the
common practice which has also been accepted by public
authorities as a minimum framework condition for standards to be
supplied and used in policies and public procurement in general.
On the other hand, standards can play a key role in providing a
platform, a common, agreed basis on which innovation can take
place. Examples we discussed are innovation on the level of the
implementation of a standard, integration of technologies, access
to coded information, etc. In such instances the innovative act
takes place using the standards that are available and implemented
while interoperability ensured by standards is the key driver for
such innovations. In other words, this is not about turning
inventions, innovative technologies into a standard, it is about
using a standard for developing innovative techniques,
technologies and solutions.
What is highly relevant here is the unencumbered availability
and broad adoption of the standard. This is where Open Standards
play an important role. There are different levels of openness and
a number of different definitions exist about what constitutes an


Research On Open Innovation

Open Standard.18 Most violently the debate has been held on

the requirements regarding licensing terms and conditions and to
what extend a standard that is available under FRAND terms and
conditions is actually an Open Standard. It is fair to say, however,
that the more common usage of the term Open Standard implies
that IPRs in the standard are available Royalty-free. In this sense
the term Open Standard had been used in the European
Interoperability Framework and had been adopted by several
governments in Europe and around the globe.

The Role Of Open Standards In

Enabling Software Interoperability And
Driving Innovation

Over the last 10 to 15 years openness has become the leading

paradigm for economies and societies. And innovation that builds
on openness can be seen on all levels the public sphere as well
as in business. Crowd sourcing and community-based work have
become common ways introducing open innovation mechanisms
which complement the traditional structures in industry. A new
equilibrium between proprietary and open has established and is
challenging companies of all sectors and in all geographies. The
concept of Open Standards can be seen as an integral part in this
overall trend and move.
Open Standards play a cr itical role in software
interoperability. They have major benefits in this context: (i) Open
Standards are available for everyone for free, without
encumbrances on their use and implementation. This way they
18 For a first and rough overview see the Wikipedia entry on Open Standard:

Research On Open Innovation

promote interoperability on the broad scale and ensure that

technologies can be integrated, innovative new products and
technologies can be added into open architectures and platforms,
etc. And (ii), Open Standards can be implemented in open source
and therefore allow for a level playing field regarding proprietary
versus open source offerings. Open Standards are also essential if
open source technologies are to be combined and integrated into
Open Standards for software interoperability have rightly been
made a requirement by a number of countries and public
administrations. Open Standards ensure open platforms where
also open source communities can contribute. Similarly open data
that is available in formats based on Open Standards can be used
and exploited by everyone without constraints and to the benefit
of the public.
The prime example for how Open Standards can boost
innovation are the internet and the world wide web. These Open
Standards, developed within then new platforms like the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C) have been available for free for everyone to
use and implement. With the standards like TCP/IP, http, html etc.
and the establishment of the world wide web there was a base
available, agreed and globally implemented, which enabled and
fostered innovation in an unprecedented way. The standards
guarantee connectivity and interoperability in an open
infrastructure. No constraints, no royalty fees to pay. This has
become an open road for innovation. And a major driver for
growth both on the global scale but also regarding the many
small and medium sized enterprises everywhere that prosper
because of the internet and because of implementing the
standards. Included are web hosting shops, web design shops, web
shops themselves, etc. Open Standards are at the core of this.

Research On Open Innovation

They promoted the biggest boost in innovation we have seen in

the last decades.
What can be seen today is that for this decade up until 2020 an
enormous potential for innovation lies in the integration of
technologies. And ICT technologies are at the core of these
The integration of technologies and the use of ICT in complex
systems is paramount in the context of solutions for a smarter
planet. Innovation here is already taking place by delivering
intelligent infrastructures that are highly efficient and overlay the
physical infrastructure with digital intelligence. Innovations occur
in the development of intelligent systems that use open standards
to provide near real-time information for more efficient
management of the infrastructure, e.g. in the context of water
quantities, or, even, entire transportation systems. Smart metering
or smart Grid is another example here. And for sure the Cloud is
taking a leading role in driving innovation and further
transforming economies and societies.

Further Building And Strengthening An

Innovation-Friendly Ecosyem

The European Commission has largely addressed the issue of

innovation and the role standards play as an enabler for innovative
technologies. Openness and Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) are major drivers in this respect. As President
Barroso had outlined, the application of innovations like Web 2.0
to business and public life is changing the way in which
innovation happens. It is becoming more open and collaborative.
Once the preserve of a select elite, it now involves a much wider
range of actors. [] crowd-sourcing and co-creation are now the

Research On Open Innovation

order of the day! We need a new policy that reflects these

changes. This means that we will have to, well, innovate!19 The
Digital Agenda has driven the European priorities in this respect
with a number of focussed action items and areas that are being
addressed. The new Commission coming into place in 2014 will
certainly continue along this successful path.
The Commission follows a holistic approach with an analysis
of the complexities in the relation between standardisation and
innovation and with a legal proposal to adapt the basic structure
of European standardisation to global trends and realities
especially in the ICT sector. This will further strengthen the
potential of standardisation in Europe to facilitate and even drive
On the further level of implementation a differentiated
approach towards standardisation and innovation is required. The
different roles standards can play in promoting innovation need to
be taken into consideration both in business strategies and on the
policy level in innovation and industrial policy. In this respect,
industry should continue working with a clear commitment to
standards and standardisation. This includes a commitment to
contribute to standardisation, take technical leadership in
standards bodies and to be willing to license technologies so that
they can be used in standardisation. At any rate, the process of
transformation for coping in the new paradigm of openness will
continue, if not increase in intensity, and industry will further be
challenged to find a new balance between proprietary and open.
Public authorities can make use of their powers by putting a
strong focus on the potential for innovation that lies in the
integration of technologies and standards. Also, public authorities
should more stringently reference standards in public
19 Barroso, President of the European Commission, Transforming the EU into an

Innovation Society, p. 4.


Research On Open Innovation

procurement. Open Standards should explicitly be required in

public policies and in procurement where software
interoperability is concerned.
Finally, standardisation needs strong and vital platforms, the
standards bodies. They also need to move on with providing a
flexible environment that is able to support innovation in all its
aspects. In particular they need to be able to support the different
roles standards can play in enabling and driving innovation. This
might require the implementation of more dynamic or flexible
rules and structures. Standards bodies will need to look whether
the policies and processes in place are suitable also for open
innovation in standards development. And they should be open to
learn from each other including best practices as applied in
global fora and consortia.
Standards are not per se a guarantee that innovation will
happen. But they can be effective tool to promote and even drive
innovation. This decade will see a high potential in this respect,
especially where the integration of technologies and thus the
combination of standards are concerned. Proper strategies for
standardisation that take into account the different roles standards
play in promoting innovation will be required for maximising the
benefits of the complex relation between standardisation and


1. A Digital Agenda for Europe: Communication from the

European Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions, COM(2009) 245 (Available at

Research On Open Innovation

2. Barroso, Jos Manuel Duro (2009), Transforming the EU

into an Innovation Society, Speech at the first European
Innovation Summit, Brussels, 13 October, 2009. (Available at

3. Decision 2011/C 349/04 of the European Commission: http://

4. EU Rolling Plan on ICT Standardisation:


5. Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union,

Communication from the European Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
COM(2010) 546 (Available at

6. European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2010 on the

future of European standardisation (2010/2051(INI))
(Available at

7. Expanding the Innovation Horizon: The Global CEO Study

2006, IBM Institute for Business Value. March 2006

Research On Open Innovation

(Available at

8. Moving to the Cloud: A white paper produced by the Cloud

Computing Use Cases Discussion Group, Version 1.0, 28
February 2011 (Available at http://

9. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on

European Standardisation, 1025/2012

10. (Available at


11. Towards an increased contribution from standardisation to

innovation in Europe, Communication from the European
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, COM(2008) 133, (Available at

12. Wikipedia, entry on Open Standard:



Research On Open Innovation

Jochen Friedrich is a member of IBMs Technical

Relations Europe team which is part of the IBM andards and
open source rategy organisation. He is responsible for
coordinating IBMs software andardisation activities in Europe
with a special focus on telecommunications, interoperability and
services as well as on open andards and the European
andardisation framework.
Jochen Friedrich arted his career in IBM at the Scientific
Centre Heidelberg in 1998. Since then he has held several lead
positions in Research and Development. He worked as operations
manager for the IBM European Voice Technology Development
team and was responsible for Business Development and Project
Coordination for Voice Research projects in Europe. Jochen has
broad experience in driving new, emerging technologies,
managing multi-national and multi-company teams and setting up
multi-company projects in the European Union research
In addition to his IBM responsibilities, Jochen is a
member of a regional board of the German Association of
Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies
(VDE), he was a foundational Board member of the Enterprise
Interoperability Centre (EIC) and holds lead roles in European
indury associations, mo notably in the OpenForum Europe
(OFE) where he chairs the andardisation task force, in
DigitalEurope (DE) and in the German ICT association BITKOM.
Jochen lives with his wife and two children in Heidelberg,
Germany. He holds a PhD in Humanities from Heidelberg
University (Germany), spent an academic year at Reading
University (United Kingdom) and holds a degree as Certified
Telematics Engineer.
For further information see Jochen's Open Blog (http:// and connect with Jochen at Linked In

Research On Open Innovation


Research On Open Innovation

Standards And Suainable

Matching Compatibility Strategies With
Syem Flexibility Objectives


By Tineke M. Egyedi20
Problems of entrenchment often severely hamper the
introduction of change in large technical syems (LTSs).
They lack the flexibility to innovate.
This paper explores the counter-intuitive assumption that
andards increase syem flexibility. To what degree and
in what manner can andardsand other rategies that
create technical compatibilityenhance syem flexibility?
It focuses on information networks of which the life cycle
is sometimes needlessly short. Dierent objectives of
syem flexibility can be discerned (e.g., exchangeability
and longevity). I examine to what degree specific
compatibility rategies (i.e., gateway technologies,
andardisation, modularity and interactive compatibility)
can be matched with diinct flexibility objectives.
I conclude that compatibility is crucial to suainable
syem innovation, and recommend that innovation
policies should incorporate andards policy.

20 A version of this article was published earlier in Interoperable Nederland,

Nico Westpalm van Hoorn, Peter Waters en Pieter Wisse (Eds.). Den Haag:
Forum Standaardisatie, 2011, pp.379-391; and Unifier or Divider? Sherrie
Bolin (Ed.), USA, Canton: Bolin Communications, Standards Edge Series,
2010, pp. 223-234.

Research On Open Innovation


There is no discussion about the need to make large technical

systems (LTSs) such as transport and energy systems more
sustainable environmentally, economically, and socially. However,
many LTSs seem impervious to change. This is partly due to the
number, interrelatedness and interdependence of constituent
socio-technical components and subsystems. LTSs comprise
technical artefacts as well as institutional and regulatory elements
of artefact production and use. Organizations and companies
develop and sustain the system. Technical add-ons and
complementary products are created. As an LTS expands, the
number of and interdependencies between actors and artefacts
grows. Over time, these interdependencies crystallise, solidify,
and make manifest a process of socio-technical entrenchment.21
To paraphrase Collingridge, changes are only possible at the
expense of readjusting the technologies and other socio-technical
arrangements that surround them. The larger the vested interests,
the higher the costs of change.

Box 1: Entrenchment in ICT

In a large government agency, the ICT infrastructure had evolved in a

piecemeal fashion. Bit by bit stand-alone, local provisions were coupled and
integrated with networked functionalities. Of the 350 software systems, 150
were generic and used throughout the organisation (e.g., office software). Two
hundred software systems served a special purpose and were used by specific
people or only locally. Those involved identified a number of serious problems
with respect to system maintenance and evolution:
the short life cycle of IT products. IT products have a relatively short
lifecycle. The average time for a software upgrade is about three years. This
David Collingridge, The Social Control of Technology (Milton Keynes, UK:
The Open University Press, 1981), 47.


Research On Open Innovation

period is close to the time needed to roll out IT products in a large
organisation (i.e., from idea to working implementation). As a result, there
is a continuous pressure to upgrade the infrastructure.
different local needs. Different IT configurations at the local level (i.e.,
lower level of organisational unit) make it difficult to rollout IT products
organisation-wide. Locally adaptations are introduced that further increases
the differences between local configurations.
unsustainable software design. Too little attention is paid to sustainable
software design. For example, software developed in a certain
programming environment does not automatically run in another (user)
unexpected interaction between software. New applications sometimes
affect existing ones in unexpected ways.
provider dependence. The organisation is sometimes locked into providerdependent (closed source) software, such as off-the-shelf software of a
monopolist and tailor-made software. System maintenance can become
very dear.
The case illustrates that where . . . information systems are updated, . . .
frequently, the resulting system grows increasingly complex, as does the
maintenance process itself . . .22 The complexity and further development of
the ICT infrastructure become difficult to manage. The ICT system lacks the
necessary flexibility.

An example of undesirable entrenchment is the production of

polyvinyl chloride (PVC).23 From the early 1930s onwards, its
production posed health and environmental risks. The dangers
ranged from health risks to workers and those living near


Nancy Bogucki Duncan, Capturing Flexibility of Information Technology

Infrastructure: A Study of Resource Characteristics and
their Measure, Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, no. 2 (Fall
1995): 43.

Karel Mulder and Marjolijn Knot, PVC Plastic: A History of Systems

Development and Entrenchment, Technology in Society 23, no. 2 (2001):

Research On Open Innovation

production and processing plants (toxicity and carcinogenity

caused by vinyl chlorine; Miamata disease due to mercury
emission) to the dioxin found in cow milk as a result of
incineration of PVC waste in the 1980s. Despite public protests,
PVC is still produced nowadays. While the industry has improved
its production, ironically this has reinforced PVC entrenchment,
making the industry's conversion to non-chlorinated plastics less
Apparently, such large technical systems have a technological
momentum24 that ". . . pushes the system along a path-dependent
process of technological change . . . ".25 Unless something radical
happens, no real deviation from the set path will occur.
Theoretical concepts such as technological momentum and
path-dependency suggest that significant system changes are
unlikely. They reflect a deterministic view on LTS evolution and
provide few clues for policy intervention. The corresponding
policy dilemma, the Collingridge Dilemma, is that entrenchment
problems are difficult to foresee at an early stage of technology
development and are difficult to address at a later stage. Where
infrastructure change is aimed for, other concepts are more
promising. For example, under the heading of 'de-entrenchment
strategies', Mulder and Knot propose means to recreate the critical
space necessary for system change. These strategies target the
systems actor network by negotiating about and redefining
aspects of the critical problem (e.g., solving a different problem or

Thomas P. Hughes, The Evolution of Large Technological Systems, in The

Social Conruction of Technological Syems: New Directions in the Sociology
and Hiory of Technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor
J. Pinch (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 51-82.

Andrew Davies, Innovation in Large Technical Systems: The Case of

Telecommunications, Indurial and Corporate Change 5, no. 4 (1996): 1148.

Research On Open Innovation

assigning a new problem owner; giving in to demands with regard

to one part of the LTS in order to safeguard another; and defining
the problem at a higher level in order to avoid competition within
the actor network at a lower level).
In this article I focus on ways to enhance the flexibility of
LTSs. Paraphrasing Feitelson and Salomon,26 flexibility refers to
the ease with which an LTS can adjust to changing circumstances
and demands. It is about openness to change. Thus, a flexible
design would make a system less susceptible to unwelcome,
premature entrenchment. In particular, I look at standards as a
means to enhance system flexibility. Certain authors note that
compatibility or interoperability standards play a crucial role in
the evolution of LTSs, but few discuss how they actually relate.

Paradox Of Standards

There is an intuitive tension between standards and

flexibility.27 Standards may foremost seem
catalysts of
entrenchment for two related reasons. First, standards codify
existing knowledge and practices. In Reddy's wordings ". . .
standardization . . . is an attempt to establish what is known,


Eran Feitelson and Ilan Salomon, The Implications of Differential Network

Flexibility for Spatial Structures, Transportation Research Part A, 34 (2000):

Ole Hanseth, Eric Monteiro, and Morten Hatling, Developing Information

Infrastructure: The Tension between Standardization and Flexibility, Science,
Technologies and Human Values 21, no. 4 (1996): 407-426.

Research On Open Innovation

consolidate what is common, and formalise what is agreed

upon."28 Codification is a primary source of entrenchment.
Second, the interrelatedness of multiple LTS components is a
source of entrenchment as well. These components are
complementarities.29 Often, their interfaces
are defined by
standards. An example is the A4 paper format that specifies the
interface between divers paper processing machines (e.g., copying
machines, telefaxes and printers) and office requisites (e.g.,
folders, computer software). The standardised interface eases the
entry of new market players, and increases interdependencies
between actors and artefacts.30 It stabilises the market.
Entrenchment eventually befalls all useful standards.
However, a standard can also be a means to postpone system
entrenchment as standardization in one part of the system creates
flexibility in another31. Formulated differently, interdependence
among the development of complementary technologies may
require the coordination provided by standardization in one

N. M. Reddy, Product of Self-Regulation: A Paradox of Technology Policy,

Technological Forecaing and Social Change 38 (1990): 59.


Paul A. David and Shane Greenstein, The Economics of Compatibility

Standards: An Introduction to Recent Research, Economics of Innovation and
New Technologies 1 (1990): 7.

Carl Cargill, Information Technology Standardization: Theory, Process and

Organizations (Cambridge, MA: Digital Press, 1989); Reddy, Product of SelfRegulation, 56.

Geoff J. Mulgan, Communication and Control: Networks and the New

Economies of Communication (New York: Guilford Press, 1990), 202.

Research On Open Innovation

domain so as to foster the generation of diversity in another."32

For example, the international standard for freight container
dimensions (ISO/R 668) lies at the basis of intermodal transport
between sea, rail and road transport33. It illustrates that standards can
also enhance flexibility in LTS design.
In the following the apparently paradoxical role of standards is
examined more closely, whether formal standards34, consortium or
de facto standards. It is discussed in the wider context of creating
local compatibility without the overall system losing the ability to
evolve and innovate.
This paper is structured as follows. First, reasons to strive for
system flexibility systems are discussed. Next, issues of
compatibility are turned to. Different sources of compatibility and
compatibility dimensions are identified. Building on the previous
sections, a conceptual model is drawn up that integrates flexibility
objectives and compatibility strategies, and carefully distinguish
between means and aims. The concluding section readdresses
compatibility issues in the light of sustainable system evolution
and innovation.


Paul A. David, Standardization Policies for Network Technologies: The flux

between Freedom and Order Revisited (ENCIP Working Paper Series,
Montpellier, France: EEIG/ENCIP, October 1994), 25.

Tineke M. Egyedi, The Standardized Container: Gateway Technologies in

Cargo Transport, in EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, Vol. 3 Homo
Oeconomicus XVII(3), ed. Manfred Holler and Esko Niskanen (Munich:
Accedo, 2000), 231-262.

Formal standards are " . . . provisions for common and repeated use, aimed at
the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context." ISO/IEC
Guide 2: General Terms and Their Definitions Concerning Standardization and
Related Activities, 1991.

Research On Open Innovation

Objectives Of Flexibility

Flexibility is a means and not an end in itself. Therefore, we

need to know why system flexibility is sought (i.e., flexibility
objectives). Many areas of technology, divers as they may be,
share the same objectives.35 For example, the automobile industry
and information managers seek system flexibility to allow the
introduction of changes while simultaneously preserving earlier
investments. In the automobile industry, flexibility serves the
purpose of creating a wider variety of personalised products,
however, the general aim is the same as in others areas: to reduce
engineering efforts and facilitate system maintenance. Table 1
lists some general, partly overlapping, flexibility objectives.

General Flexibility Objectives

improvement while preserving earlier investments

reduced engineering eorts
reduced operational costs
higher system eciency
reduced maintenance eorts
Table 1: General flexibility objectives.

Duncan, Capturing Flexibility of Information Technology Infrastructure;

Takahiro Fujimoto and Daniel Raff, Conclusion, in Coping with Variety:
Flexible Productive Syems for Product Variety in the Auto Indury, eds.
Yannick Lung, J. J. Chanaron, Takahiro Fujimoto, and Daniel Raff (Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate, 1999), 393-406; Feitelson and Salomon, The Implications of
Differential Network Flexibility; Terry Anthony Byrd and Douglas E. Turner,
An Exploratory Examination of the Relationship between Flexible IT
Infrastructure and Competitive Advantage Information and Management 39,
no. 1 (November 2001): 41-52.


Research On Open Innovation

Looking in more detail into flexibility requirements in ICT,

reusability of system components plays a key role. It is relevant to
system innovation, reengineering, and managing the rapid change
of technological generations. Independent and reusable data and
application components simplify ". . . processes of development,
maintenance or reengineering of direct-purpose systems," and
reduce their costs.36 Reusability is an overarching aim. It comes in
different shapes, and is an important element in many of the
following, more specific flexibility objectives in ICT:37
exchangeability, that is, exchangeable software applications,
computer hardware, etc. (i.e., reuse in a different system or
context, and over time),38
portability, which refers to the different hardware and
software platforms upon which software entities can operate and
be ported (i.e., reuse on different platforms),39
scalability, which refers to the possibility to use the same
software on mainframe and micro-computers (i.e., reuse in
smaller/larger system), 40




Tineke M. Egyedi, Standards Enhance Flexibility? Mapping Compatibility

Strategies onto Flexibility Objectives (paper presented at EASST 2002
Conference, Standardization Track, University of York, UK, July 31-August 3,
J. A. Dinklo, Open Systemen, Informatie en Informatiebeleid 7, no. 2
(1989): 29-36.






Research On Open Innovation

extendibility or upgradeability (i.e., add new elements to a

system in order to reuse existing parts of the system and
lengthen its life-span ),41
integration of heterogeneous components and subsystems
(i.e., reuse of part of the system by integrating new elements or
by integrating different subsystems; organization internallyoriented), 42
interconnectivity (i.e., reuse of system through coupling
with other (sub)systems; organization externally-oriented),43
reversibility (i.e., reversing changes to the system), and
downgradeability (likewise, e.g., for accessing an old
archive; longevity)
Some flexibility objectives are more likely to be achieved by
standards; important; for others, other means of creating
compatibility may be more obvious.


Duncan, Capturing Flexibility of Information Technology Infrastructure.


Reuse of part of a system for the purpose of integration with another system
(part) is a transient form of flexibility: once integrated into a higher level
system, flexibility is lost at the lower level. An example of integration can be
found in Philipp Genschel, Institutioneller Wandel in der Standardisierung van
Informationstechnik (doctoral dissertation, University of Cologne, Germany,

Philipp Genschel, Institutioneller Wandel

in der Standardisierung van Informationstechnik (doctoral dissertation,
University of Cologne, Germany, 1993).

Research On Open Innovation

The term compatibility refers to the "suitability of products,
processes or services for use together . . ."44 It is used here as
synonymous with 'interoperability'. As a stepping stone towards a
discussion of compatibility strategies, I first address key
characteristics and possible sources of compatibility.

Generic and Dedicated Gateways

The term 'compatibility' is closely related to the term 'gateway
technology', which refers to " . . . a means (a device or convention)
for effectuating whatever technical connections between distinct
production sub-systems are required in order for them to be utilised
in conjunction, within a larger integrated . . . system.45 Gateways
"make it technically feasible to utilise two or more components/
subsystems as compatible complements or compatible substitutes in
an integrated system of production."46
Gateways differ in the scope of compatibility they achieve.47
Some gateways are dedicated. They link an exclusive and specified
number of subsystems. For example, gateways that link specific
proprietary computer networks belong to this category.


ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC Guide, 2.

Paul A. David and Julie Ann Bunn, The Economics of Gateway

Technologies and Network Evolution: Lessons from Electricity Supply
History, Information Economics and Policy 3, no. 2 (1988): 170.


Ibid., 172.


Tineke M. Egyedi, The Standardized Container".


Research On Open Innovation

Other gateways have generic properties. Standards developed in

committees48 function as generic gateways. The example of the A4
paper format was mentioned earlier as an interface specification
between unspecified and divers storage and processing devices. An
even more generic category of standards is the reference model that
guides interdependent, complementary standards activities. A wellknown one in the field of ICT is the Open Systems Interconnection
(OSI) Reference Model49. Gateway technologies can thus be
categorised as dedicated, generic, or meta-generic, depending on the
scope of compatibility concerned.
The degree of standardization to which a gateway is submitted,
determines the scope of the gateway solution. Where no
standardization has occurred, the connection between subsystems is
improvised, at it were. This corresponds to a dedicated gateway.
Standardized gateway solutions, which aim at connecting an
unspecified number of subsystems, correspond to generic gateways.
Gateways that are based on modelled (standardized) solutions, that
is, standardization at the level of reference frameworks, embody
meta-generic properties. SeeTable 2.



The term committee standardization refers here to activities that are

exclusively set up to lead to multi-party standards. They take place in formal
standards bodies such as ISO, in professional organizations, and other multiparty fora (IEEE, IETF), or in standards consortia (e.g., W3C; i.e., multi-party
industry standards fora).

The OSI reference model (ISO 7498 and CCITT X.200) identifies logically
separate generic functions in data communication. It depicts these as a set of
hierarchically ordered layers, which address areas of standardization.

Research On Open Innovation

Level of Standardization

Scope of Gateway Solution

High (modelled)


Medium (standardized)


Low (improvised)



Table 2: Relationship between the level of standardization

and the scope of the gateway solution.

Sources of De Facto Compatibility

The origin of de facto compatibility may differ(note: I'm not
speaking about de facto standardization). See Table 3. The table
highlights committee standardization of IT software as a multiparty specification process that leads to a standard. It is a means
to coordinate the activities of competing parties.50 Only if the
standard is implemented widely does de facto compatibility
result.Compare this with the compatibility achieved by de facto
standards. Here, the specification process takes place in a
company or in collaboration between several parties.
Compatibility results as a by-product of market dominance (e.g.,
PDF format and Microsoft Windows).
The type of specification process need have no bearing on
how ownership of the specification is handled. A company may
keep the proprietary technology to itself, monopolise the

Susanne K. Schmidt and Raymund Werle, Coordinating Technology: Studies

in the International Standardization of Telecommunication (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1998); Martin B. H. Weiss and Marvin Sirbu, Technological
Choice in Voluntary Standards Committees: An Empirical Analysis,
Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1 (1990): 111-133.

Research On Open Innovation

production of a key component, and define an interface which

effectively ties complementary products of other firms to the
proprietary technology.51 Or, a company or group of players may
give away its technology with an eye to expected long-term
advantages, or enter into coalitions with rivals to enlarge its user
base and increase support for its technology. Open source
software, for example, usually comes with a non-proprietary,
liberal licensing regime.

Stages >
Type of
Specif. Process

Specication Process

Market Process






ted widely?


(e.g., Open





Yes > de
No > local
or no

Table 3: Two types of specification processes may lead

to de facto compatibility between software.52

Compatibility Dimensions
In the following, I discuss the different compatibility
strategies. To my knowledge, this has not been done before. For


David and Greenstein, The Economics of Compatibility Standards.


Source: Tineke M. Egyedi, Strategies for de facto Compatibility:

Standardization, Proprietary and Open Source Approaches to Java,
Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 14, no. 2 (2001): 113-128.

Research On Open Innovation

purpose of reference, I start with dedicated gateways, which is

the default strategy in most situations.

Dedicated Gateways
As defined earlier, a dedicated gateway is a device or
convention that allows a limited number of subsystems to be used
together. The AC/DC rotary converter, which linked the
subnetworks of direct and alternating current in the early years of
electricity53 is an example, as is the Nordunet Plug54. This
protocol provided access from different subnetworks (i.e., OSI/X.
25, EARN, DECnet, and ARPANET/IP) to a shared backbone.
Both these gateways were designed to link specified subsystems.
Different views exist about the degree of flexibility which
dedicated gateways provide. Hanseth emphasises the flexibility
they create for experimentation at subsystem level and their
importance in the phase of system building.55
On the other hand, these gateways work as ad hoc solutions,
often worsening subsystem entrenchment. Although they may
initially offer flexibility, they may turn out to be . . . another
instance of a temporary solution to the consequences of
inflexibility. . . . If gateways are . . . [not standardized or modular],


Hughes, The Evolution of Large Technological Systems.


Ole Hanseth, GatewaysJust as Important as Standards: How the Internet

Won the Religious War about Standards in Scandinavia, Knowledge,
Technology, and Policy 14, no. 3 (2001): 71-90.



Research On Open Innovation

. . . they may add the sort of complexity to the infrastructure that

obstructs flexibility.56


As said, committee compatibility standards are generic

solutions. They create complements and facilitate
substitution between standardized artefacts. For example,
widespread use of the ISO standard for freight container
dimensions created a technologyi.e., transport modeneutral
system environment. Moreover, it also created a supplier-neutral
system environment (i.e., generic in the economic sense) by
means of a level playing field for different vendors. Indeed, since
the early days of the computer, customers have been tied to the
products of their initial platform provider and have not been able
to switch systems without incurring heavy costs. Dedicated
interconnections between proprietary systems only partly
alleviated the interoperability problem. Although technically
feasible, such interconnections were too costly, numerous and
cumbersome to create and sustain. In the 1980's this resulted in
standards activities which focused on open systems. Open
systems are ". . . computer environments that are based on de
facto or international standards, which are publicly available and
supplier independent."57



Duncan, Capturing Flexibility of Information Technology Infrastructure,


Dinklo, Open Systemen, 29-30.


Research On Open Innovation





Figure 2a: Standardization dimension.

Figure 2a projects degree of standardization on a dimension.

Technical compatibility achieved by an ad hoc, improvised
solution is portrayed to the left (i.e., no standardization).
Dedicated gateways and proprietary de facto standards are
categorised as such on this dimension. Highly standardized
solutions such as reference models would be projected to the
extreme right.


To specify the term modularity, A system is modular if it

consists of distinct (autonomous) components, which are loosely
coupled with each other, with a clear relationship between each
component and its function(s) and well-defined, . . . 58 interfaces
connecting the components, which require low levels of
coordination.59 In ICT modularity plays at different system


Wolters includes standardized interface as a property of modularity.

However, I agree with the comment of my colleague, Jos Vrancken, that the
presence of an interface is far more important than their being standardized.

Matthijs J. Wolters, The Business of Modularity and the Modularity of

Business (doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the
Netherlands, ERIM Ph.D. Series in Management no. 11, 2002).

Research On Open Innovation

levels. Software modules may be used in what Reitwiesner and

Volkert60 call componentware (component-based software) or, at a
higher level, in pick-and-mix configurations. Modularity is the
second compatibility dimension. See Figure 2d. On the left end of
this dimension, the modular approach is not applied.
Improvised solutions would be projected here (low degree of
modularity). On the right end highly modular approaches are
projected. The framework or reference model indicates which
components or modules are included and how they are

Interactive Compatibility



Figure 2b: Modularity dimension.

The term '(interactive) compatibility artefact' is used here to

refer to
technical devices and conventions that create
compatibility between ICT components and (sub)systems. For
example, an interface, middleware, gateways and software agents.
Middleware refers to a generic building block that supports
Bernd Reitwiesner and Stefan Volkert, On the Impact of Standardization on
the Provision of ERP-Systems as Mission Critical Business Infrastructure, in
Standards Compatibility and Infraructure Development: Proceedings of the
6th EURAS Workshop, eds. K. Dittrich and Tineke M. Egyedi (conference held
at Delft University of Technology, Delft the Netherlands, June 28-29, 2001)


Research On Open Innovation

different applications (e.g., DirectX creates 3D images in

computers games; web services communicate between
applications; the Java platform is used to create a vendorindependent programming environment). Gateways usually create
compatibility between protocols in a fixed, static way. However,
they sometimes also negotiate compatibility in a more dynamic
manner. Krechmer and Baskin61 use the term adaptability
standard to capture negotiation between
telecommunication services: "Adaptability standards specify a
negotiation process between systems which include two or more
compatibility standards or variations and are used to establish
communications. These standards negotiate the channel coding
and/or source coding. (...) Examples include: T.30 (used with G3
facsimile), V.8, V.8bis (used with telephone modems), G.994.1
(used with DSL transceivers), and discovery protocols."
The potential relevance of negotiating compatibility also
applies to non-standardized settings. In the future, agent
technology may also play an important compatibility-forging role.
Specific attributes of software agents are that they are
autonomous, goal-driven and can negotiate and interact with their
environment (i.e., can communicate, act and react on their
environment.62 These features are essential to intelligent gateways.
Although the technology is still largely in the research phase, one


Ken Krechmer and E. Baskin, Standards, Information and Communications:

A Conceptual Basis for a Mathematical Understanding of Technical
Standards, in Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Conference on Standardization
and Innovation in Information Technology, SIIT 2001 (conference held at
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, October 3-5, 2001), 106-114.

Marijn Janssen, Designing Electronic Intermediaries: An Agent-Based

A p p ro a ch fo r D e s i g n i n g I n t e ro rga n i z a t i o n a l C o o rd i n a t i o n
Mechanisms (doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2001), 11.

Research On Open Innovation

could imagine a future in which these agents are designed to selforganize compatibility and manage the complexity of conversion
for the sake of interoperability.

Interactive compatibility


Agent Technology





Figure 2c: Interactive compatibility dimension.

In Figure 2c, the compatibility artefacts are mapped onto the

dimension of interactive compatibility. This dimension identifies
artefacts as more passive or more active in forging compatibility.
At the high end of this dimension, artefacts are projected that have
the capacity to negotiate and interact in an intelligent and
autonomous way (e.g., agent technology). At the low end,
artefacts are projected that create compatibility in a passive (i.e.,
static and fixed) manner.

Compatibility Space
The three independent compatibility dimensions are depicted
in Figure 3. The figure illustrates that each (interactive)
compatibility artefact, depicted on the X-axis, can be standardized
(depicted on the Y-axis) and designed in a modular way (depicted
on the Z-axis). But this need not be so.



Research On Open Innovation





Agent Technology









Figure 3: Three-dimensional Space of Compatibility.

The figure further draws attention to the necessity of

distinguishing standardization from modularity. And most
important, the figure draws attention to as yet unexplored
compatibility strategies. At present most artefacts are dedicated,
improvised solutions to problems of interoperability (i.e., nonstandardized and non-modular). The reader is invited to reflect on
a future with standardized agents and modular standards.
Each situation may need a different compatibility solution. By
identifying the main dimensions, it becomes easier to discuss and
prioritise compatibility solutions.


Research On Open Innovation

Matching Compatibility With Flexibility

Recapitulating, there are several ways to create system

flexibility. Experience informs us that specific flexibility
objectives are usually better achieved in certain ways than others.
For example, committee standards further exchangeability; and
modularity facilitates the extension and upgrading of systems.


Mean: Compatibility

Aim: Flexibility

interactive compatibility !

interface !

middleware !

gateway !

agent technology!
modularity & architecture!
transparency !


Other Aims:



Other Means

Figure 4: Elements to take into account when seeking a match

between compatibility means and flexibility objectives. Although
flexibility aims might be achieved by different means, the focus is here
on what compatibility strategies may contribute (straight arrow).

Figure 4 models the relationship between compatibility and

system flexibility as a causal one. Both categories comprise very
different instances. To illustrate the model's relevance, a classic IT
problem is that customers are locked-in to a specific computer
platform. One solution is platform-independent computing. This
would bring about system flexibility (e.g., portability and

Research On Open Innovation

scalability). In the 1990s, the Java community developed a

middleware solution to address this problem, i.e., the Java
platform. Would formal standardization of the Java platform,
which was attempted twice but failed, have furthered the aims of
portability and scalability? Or could a certain agent technology
also have solved the problem? Figure 4 may help identify the
different options.
In large technical systems, matching compatibility strategies
with flexibility objectives may become a complex matter because
the choice of strategy will depend partly on factors such as
whether the system environment is very dynamic (if not,
then a dedicated solution rather than a multi-party standard may
for what period the solution is foreseen (i.e., how long the
overall system is likely be useful); if necessary for the short
term, a dedicated solution can suffice; if longer, a more durable
solution such as standardisation and modularity may be better;
at what system level(s) flexibility can be achieved. Can it be
achieved at different levels? Does the type of flexibility differ
per level, and should the compatibility solution at these levels
therefore also differ?


Compatibility is a core issue in the evolution of large technical

systems. Where socio-technical entrenchment appears to hinder a
transition, standards and other
compatibility strategies are
important to look into. They can be a means to (re)create the
flexibility required for change.
In this paper, I emphasised that different strategies exist for
creating compatibility. These strategies can be plotted as
coordinates in a three-dimensional space of compatibility, with

Research On Open Innovation

the dimensions standardisation, modularity and interactive

Matching types of flexibility objectives with compatibility
strategies cannot be done in a uniform way. Although some
strategies generally seem better set to increase system
responsiveness to sustainability demands than others (e.g., highly
modularised, modelled consensus standards), the ideal match
depends on the circumstances (e.g., what system level is targeted,
whether the pressure for change is likely to persist, etc.).
The foregoing illustrates that addressing compatibility
problems in an early stage of system design is crucial for the
degree of system flexibility later on. In a pre-conditional manner,
the chosen compatibility strategy co-determines
the ease with
which change can take place. Technology innovation policies of
governments and companies should therefore take compatibility
issues into account, and incorporate a standardsor rather
Some very fundamental research questions remain to be
answered. Are the three compatibility dimensions proposed the
most relevant ones? How generalisable are they and the flexibility
objectives to other LTSs?



Research On Open Innovation

Tineke M. Egyedi (PhD, 1996) is senior researcher

Standardization at the Delft Initute for Research on
Standardization. Her current research interes include how
andards aect innovation. She has participated in several EU
projects (e.g. Study on the specific
policy needs for ICT andardisation) and science foundation
projects. She publishes widely. Her mo recent book is on
'Inverse Infraructures' (2012).
She has organised and chaired several conferences, and is
regularly invited internationally as a speaker. In 2009 she
initiated Setting Standards', a simulation exercise currently used
by NIST to train US policy makers and earlier by NEN for
Chinese andardizers. She is vice-president of the European
Academy for Standardization, Fellow of the Open Forum
Academy, expert to UN/ECE WP 6, and member of ISICT/ IEEE
ComSocs Emerging Technologies Committee.


Research On Open Innovation


Research On Open Innovation


Four Dimensions Aecting Policy

Resiance In It Procurement
By Mathieu Paap
The Dutch rategic IT plan Netherlands Open in
Connection intends to give a direction for public sector
buyers to adopt a positive policy and rategy towards
open andards, Open Source Software and the use of
ODF. This article describes the support and resiance of
the policy by government buyers found after researching
the documents of 80 tenders, and after interviewing 15
government buyers. In this article the awareness
knowledge threshold and four dimensions are described
that together can function as an interpretative framework
helping policy makers underand why an IT-related
policy is supported or resied. The four dimensions in the
proposed framework eablish the relative advantage that
will influence the degree of willingness to adopt and use a
new rategic IT policy. When there is a negative influence
within a dimension the policy mak er should
counterbalance that influence by using a positive
inrument within that same dimension.


In December 2007 the Dutch government agreed on the action

plan Netherlands Open in Connection, hereafter called NOiV, the
Dutch acronym. The objectives of this strategic plan are the

Research On Open Innovation

1. increase interoperability by accelerating the use of open

2. reduction of supplier dependence through a faster
introduction of open source software, open standards and the
use of ODF (a document format based on an open standard);
3. promotion of a level playing field in the software market
(...) by forceful stimulation of the use of open source software,
and by giving preference to open source software during the
process of IT acquisition.
To reach these goals the action plan describes a number of
different policies for open standards and open source software. A
vast number of these policies directly affects the process of IT
procurement within government organisations. To understand why
some objectives are supported and some are resisted by
government buyers, the following question for a PhD research was
selected: How and under what circumstances does a strategic IT
plan influence behaviour regarding the practice of public tenders?
If these circumstances can be identified it would become possible
for policymakers to take them into account while designing future
strategic IT policies. It would also become possible to make
predictions about the expected performance of existing strategic
IT plans like the European digital agenda63 or the British
Government ICT strategy.64

Research And Methodology

To answer the research question a conformance and

performance research methodology is used (Maarse, 1991). This



Research On Open Innovation

methodology focuses bottom-up on the influence a strategic

policy has on the behaviour of a targeted organisation during the
policy implementation phase (Barret, 2004). A strategic policy is
fulfilling its purpose if it plays a tangible role in the choices of the
addressed policy takers (Faludi, 2000). Through monitoring
information is produced about the observed policy outcomes
(conformance) and through evaluation the research produces
information about the value of the observed policy outcomes


To see how the Dutch strategic IT policy is enacted in

practice, empirical quantitative research was carried out which
asked for the data of all the Dutch calls for tender, published in
Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) between January and June 2010,
that followed the open procedure and that consisted of the
delivery of software of some kind.65 Out of the total sample of 94
calls, data relating to 80 tenders was received, a response rate of
85 %. All these tender documents were examined on different
aspects and policies, such as the needs or want for open standards,
vendor-independent award criteria, the possibility to use ODF for
the bid, and the possible preference for open or closed source
products. The goal of this quantitative research is not to generalise
the outcome, but to see if during a certain period the policy has
been supported or resisted. The collected data from this
quantitative research is needed to give input and meaning to the


The tenders that asked for Voice over IP technologies or printer hardware
with printer drivers were not included in the sample of 95 tenders due to
technical expertise limitations.

Research On Open Innovation

subsequent question why the strategic policy is resisted or

supported (De Lange, 1995).


The quantitative research provides insight into the expected

effect of policy decisions in IT procurement. It does not provide
insight into the arguments and reasoning behind this application
or into the resistance of the policy. It also does not provide an
answer to the question whether any found compliance is a direct
result of the policy or might be the result of something else. It is
not possible to evaluate policy outcomes without establishing that
it is an outcome in the first place (Dunn, 2008). To identify these
factors further qualitative research was needed within
organisations in order to look into the so-called black box of
decision-making (Hertogh, 1997). That qualitative research was
done during the period between January and April 2011 through
in-depth semi-open interviews with 15 respondents in different
organisations selected from the quantitative research. These
respondents were all public sector buyers with an expertise in IT

Quantitative Results

The following results emerged from the quantitative research

of some Dutch policies:

Policy 1: The use of open andards falling under the CorE

The Comply or Explain principle, in short CorE, primarily
intends to give a direction for organisations in the (semi-) public

Research On Open Innovation

sector to adopt and use a certain (open) standard within a specific

domain or application area. The selection of these standards and
domains is done and published by the Dutch Standardisation
Board.66 In practice it means that within a procurement process
the contracting authorities are expected to ask for these specific
open standards when applicable (Comply) or otherwise should
explain in their annual report why they did not ask for them. This
policy helps standardisation within the public sector and supports
The quantitative research revealed that the Comply or Explain
principle was applicable in 56 cases and a specified open standard
should have been asked. Out of these 56 cases there were 20 cases
(36%) in which the tender documents followed the policy and
actually mentioned a need or want for one or more open
standards. In the remaining 36 cases (64%) the CorE standards
were not requested. In the annual reports no formal explanation
has been published by the noncompliant organisations.

Request for open










Table 1: Frequency of needs and wants for CorE open


Policy 2: The use of ODF

Open document formats are important for the exchange and
processing of documents within organisations. Citizens and
businesses should therefore have the possibility to send and
receive documents to and from organisations in the (semi-) public


Research On Open Innovation

sector using the ODF format (ISO 26300). According to the

action plan all the ministries and subsidiary government bodies
should have been able to receive documents in the ODF open
standard by January 2009 at the latest.67
In the quantitative research the possibility of a vendor using
the ODTODT (ODF) format for his bid was considered. It was
found that in almost half (45%) of the cases (n=80) the use of
ODF was actually possible. In the other 46 % it was not possible;
however this was mainly caused because the contracting
authorities demanded the use of the PDF format. Only in one case
both PDF and ODF were not possible because a vendor was
obliged to use a Microsoft Word and Excel format suitable for
Windows XP.
In the 7 remaining cases (9 %) a digital bid was not requested
by the tendering organisation.

Possibility of
using ODF











Table 2: Frequency of possibilities to deliver the bid in ODF

These results suggest at first sight that this particular part of

the Dutch policy is in fact supported by the contracting

Policy 3: Creating a level playing field.


Ac t i o np l a n Net h e rl a n d s O p e n i n C o n n e c t i o n , p . 9 h t t p : / /

Research On Open Innovation

To guarantee that providers of open source software will get

the opportunity to make a competitive offer there ought to be a
'level playing field' for the open source software providers and the
closed source software suppliers.
In the quantitative research the tender documents were
examined for a preference for closed source software and in
particular a preference for a named closed source product or
vendor. The mere use of a trademark or product name in public
procurement (which is actually a widespread practice 68) was not,
by itself, considered sufficient to demonstrate such a preference.
In lots of cases trademarks and product names are used to
describe both the current architecture, as well as the software the
new solution has to integrate with.69 For the purpose of this study
such a use of trademarks and product names was not believed to
establish a clear preference for a product or vendor, although one
could argue that it becomes a discriminating preference the
moment compatibility is required with previously purchased
proprietary software, especially if the technical specifications


See e.g. OpenForum Europe, 2011. OFE Procurement Monitoring

Report: EU Member States practice of referring to specific trademarks when
procuring for Computer Software packages and Information Systems between
the months of February and April 2011, where 147 out of 441 tender notices
mention trademarks in procurement documents .

According to Gosh 2010, this might not be a legitimate functional

requirement according to article 23 (8) of the Directive 2004/18/EC since
software can usually be described in terms of standards and functionality.

Research On Open Innovation

needed for that compatibility are not publicly available and freely
For the purposes of this study actual discriminatory use of
trademarks, patents, types, and legal and technical conditions in
relation to the vendor or product which was the subject of the
procurement needed to be present in order to establish a
preference for closed source vendors or products. In 29 cases (36
%) a clear preference for a named closed source product or a
closed source vendor was found. Accordingly, other vendors than
the preferred one did not have a fair chance to win a bid in these
29 cases.

Preference for
closed source
vendor or









Table 3: Preference for closed source vendor or product

In two of these 29 cases the tendering organisations

specifically mentioned that they had a preference for a named
closed source product and vendor.
Finally some of the other criteria that could prevent vendors,
and in particular FLOSS vendors, from making a bid and having a
fair chance of winning were considered. In 9 other cases indirect
In decision T-345/03 of 12/03/2008 the Court of first instance of the
European Community considers that the Commission infringed the principle of
equal treatment between tenderers by failing to make available to all the
prospective tenderers from the beginning of the tendering procedure the
documentation relating to the technical architecture and source code and that
that infringement could thus have affected the award of the contested contract.


Research On Open Innovation

restrictions were found that made it very difficult or impossible

for vendors to offer a FLOSS product.

preventing fair









Table 4: Frequencies of rerictions for Open source software


This shows that despite the Dutch policy and despite the
European procurement rules in almost half of the sampled tenders
there still is a preference for closed source vendors or products.
This preference inevitably results in vendors of open source
products not receiving a fair chance to win the bid. From these
results one can also draw the conclusion that this particular part
of the Dutch policy is resisted, regardless of the fact that also
European procurement rules prescribe a fair chance for vendors.

Qualitative Results

When asked for the drivers and barriers all the respondents
mentioned at least one or more of the following four reasons why
they resisted or followed (a part of) the policy:
1. Technical reasons
2. Legal reasons
3. Financial/economical reasons
4. Knowledge/experience reasons

Comply or Explain policy


Research On Open Innovation

With regards to the Comply or Explain policy the respondents

did not feel a negative or positive influence of any kind related to
technical, legal or experience reasons. All the respondents seem to
be positive about open standards. Some of the respondents did,
however, mention that the board of their organisation adopted
their own version of the government policy on open standards,
which could indicate that there is an additional positive influence.
Some of the respondents argued that asking for open standards
would most certainly cause vendors to demand a higher price.
That idea alone was enough for them to resist the policy. Not all
the policy takers resisted or supported the policy deliberately. A
rather large proportion of them were simply not aware of the
existence of the policy, which could indicate that the government
did not communicate enough about the strategic IT plan in
general or specifically about the Comply or explain policy. This
is also an explanation for the quantitative results that were found.

The use of ODF

Comparing the outcomes of the quantitative research into the
possibility to use ODF with the given answers by the respondents
gives the following result: The found compliance is not the result
of the policy. Only two respondents indicated that they are aware
of the existence of the policy. The others said that they have not
heard of any policy regarding the use of ODF and that in case no
particular format is demanded they expect vendors to use
Microsoft formats. When asked about any negative or positive
factors the respondents mentioned that their organisations were
already andardised on the proprietary .doc format. That should,
however, not hinder the use of ODF. The government did offer
organisations a physical solution in the form of a free USB stick
with an ODF converter on it. Within regards to reasons of
knowledge and experience some negative influence came from the

Research On Open Innovation

fact that Microsoft promoted OOXML which made some

organisations reluctant in using ODF. As a countermeasure the
Dutch government supported the ODF-policy with a small
communication campaign. In this campaign they called the use of
ODF a right for citizens in the communication with government
organisations, although that right is not based on a specific rule of
law, and citizens cannot legally force government organisations to
accept their ODF documents. There has not been a negative legal
influence. With regards to the financial/economical reasons to
follow or resist the policy there are no financial incentives in
place. The implementation of the policy however also did not
have a significant negative impact on the finances of the

Creating a level playing eld

When asked about the Creating a level playing field policy a
strong negative influence comes from the fact that organisations
are locked in to a technical solution and cannot freely choose to
adopt a new technical solution. The respondents feel that the
government did not offer a solution in their strategic IT plan to
counterbalance this negative influence. Some respondents
mention a negative influence with regard to knowledge and
experience in the form of misinformation about open source
software, most commonly known as fear, uncertainty and doubt
(FUD). According to some respondents this is primarily caused by
negative experiences in municipalities. Although at first the
government tried to do its best to communicate about the positive
results of vendor independence through the use of open source
software, after some months the focus seemed to shift to other
parts of the strategic policy, such as the use of open standards.
This may have caused the fact that the positive experiences did
not reach the media as much as their negative counterparts. A

Research On Open Innovation

second negative influence with regard to knowledge and

experience is the fact that users within organisations want to work
with an IT product they are already familiar with. This subjective
compatibility plays a strong role within the decision-making
process of most government buyers. Another negative influence
felt by the respondents is caused by the so-called switching costs
that are considered higher when switching to an open source
solution. When it comes to legal reasons some respondents feel a
negative influence caused by intellectual property law and
running contracts, both protecting monopolists, which makes it in
some cases difficult for the respondents to really have a free
choice. Despite the fact that according to European procurement
law one is not allowed to give preference to a certain vendor, the
results from both the quantitative as well as the qualitative
research show that the positive influence from this legal driver
seems to be heavily outweighed by the negative influence caused
by the other reasons.


Research On Open Innovation

Interpretative Framework

Based on the research results a theoretical and interpretative

framework is constructed that can help policy makers to evaluate
(ex post) and forecast (ex ante) IT related policy outcomes.


Figure 1: Interpretative framework for strategic IT policies.

Awareness Knowledge

The necessary first step for all strategic policies is that a

policy taker needs to be exposed to the policys existence. In order
to be able to support or resist it the policy taker needs to become
aware of the policy and the problem the policy is trying to solve.
This is called awareness knowledge (Rogers, 2003).
research results clearly show that the awareness knowledge
threshold is the most important barrier a policymaker has to
address. In at least two cases the observed policy outcomes are

Research On Open Innovation

not the direct result of the policy performance. This means that
the policy maker should think beforehand about possible ways of
communicating about the policy to the intended policy taker.
Does the policy taker even know that there is a problem and that
he or she has to play a certain role in order to solve the problem?
Only after this so-called knowledge phase will the policy
taker enter the persuasion stage where a favourable or
unfavourable attitude towards the policy will be developed. The
policy taker will then try to find out what the advantages and
disadvantages of the policy are and in particular what the shortterm relative advantage is for his organisation.

The Persuasion Stage

In the persuasion stage the proposed framework describes four

dimensions: technical, legal, financial/economical and knowledge/
experience. Within each dimensions there can be negative and
positive influences that should be taken into account by the policy
maker. When there is a strong negative influence within a
dimension the policy maker should counterbalance that influence
by using a positive instrument within that same dimension. These
instruments that the policymaker can use are legal rules, financial
compensation/incentives, communication and marketing, and
physical solutions (Fenger & Klok, 2008).

Technical dimension:
Within the technical dimension the negative influence is
coming from the objective compatibility established by current
vendors. Vendor lock-in is the situation in which customers are
dependent on a single manufacturer or supplier for a product or
service and cannot move to another vendor without substantial
costs and/or inconvenience. It is that inconvenience that is

Research On Open Innovation

strongly related to the technical dimension. In the case of IT one

must take into account that in most cases there is no greenfield
situation. Often an organisation has some sort of legacy where an
existing architecture and system are the departure points for future
actions. Certain policy choices can be obstructed by technical
architecture or technical possibilities (Mifsud Bonnici, 2008). For
example new application software must be capable of being
installed on the existing platform (e.g. Windows) and must be
compatible with the existing applications. These applications
usually do not support multi platforms. This headlock also applies
the other way around because a new platform must also be able to
support the platform-dependent applications already in use. There
are also situations in which several applications interweave with
each other in a way that makes it impossible to remove an
application. With closed source software and closed standards it is
difficult to discover how the interaction takes place, but even
more difficult to discover how to break free from that physical
boundary. A trapped mouse can proclaim that he will stay away
from the cheese next time, however that policy will not help him
to get out of the mousetrap. To counterbalance the influence of
the objective compatibility a strategic IT policy should contain a
solution to this barrier. One could think of prescribing certain
behaviour by means of technology, or offering an alternative and
free product. Both are examples of physical solutions.

Legal dimension:
As soon as a software product (or a standard) has acquired a
certain monopoly the supplier of the product is able to exercise
additional power on the basis of intellectual property law. The
supplier can legally oblige the software user to participate in or to
abstain from certain actions. Running contracts could make it
impossible to choose a new product or to get the co-operation of

Research On Open Innovation

the current vendor in creating compatibility with open source

software. When the compatibility of products is prevented by
exercising the rights of intellectual property or contract law this
could also result in an obstruction of competition (van Loon,
2008). This negative legal influence can be counterbalanced by a
positive legal influence such as National law, European directives
or other forms of legal regulation that can proscribe a certain
action. The results from the research do show however that the
expected positive influence from this legal driver can be
outweighed by the negative influence caused in other dimensions.

Financial/economical dimension:
Not all policy takers will be very supportive of a policy that
will cost the organisation money. This specifically applies to
government buyers who see it as their primary goal to get good
value for money (Arrowsmith & Kunzlik, 2009). Because of the
technical dependence on the current software the costs of a
migration to a new innovation from a different vendor will in most
cases be higher than a migration to a product of the current
supplier. Moreover there are possible migration costs resulting
from the fact that users need to learn to use a new product. These
migration costs can be the reason to resist a policy. This is the
financial/economical dependence. This negative influence needs
to be counterbalanced by the policy maker using financial
incentives, such as government grants.

Knowledge/experience dimension:
In this dimension the perceived subjective compatibility and
the communication about the use of the policy can have both a
negative and positive influence on the decision to resist or support
the policy. The perceived subjective compatibility is the
compatibility of the policy or the policy outcomes with the

Research On Open Innovation

personal experience the policy taker has with a certain

technology. The policy taker is also being influenced by the
opinions and experiences of his social network. Just like the
people in his social network the policy taker wants to work with
technology he is already familiar with or with technology that has
benefits due to network effects. Any policy that wants to change
or challenge that subjective compatibility should address this
issue and take the relevant constraints into account.
Policy makers often use communication as a policy
instrument (Fenger & Klok, 2008). Within this particular
dimension the use of communication can establish the so-called
how-to knowledge, where a policy taker needs to understand
how to use a policy and the principles-knowledge, where a
policy taker gets an understanding of the principles behind the
policy. This policy instrument usually focuses on the use of a
policy and results in the production and communication of
guidelines or good practices. This particular form of
communication will however not establish awareness knowledge.
If the policy taker is not aware of the problem and of the policy
that tries to solve that problem, he will not be receptive or looking
for the how-to knowledge or the principles-knowledge (Rogers,


The four described dimensions together establish the relative

advantage that will influence the degree of willingness to adopt
and use a new strategic IT policy. Together with the awareness
knowledge threshold they can function as an interpretative
framework helping policy makers understand better why an ITrelated policy is supported or resisted. Based on the proposed

Research On Open Innovation

framework a reasonable hypothesis for further research would be

that the desired performance of a strategic IT policy is only
possible if the policy maker addresses the awareness knowledge
threshold and takes all relevant constraints within the four
dimensions into account. The research results show that in the
case of the Dutch action plan this has been partially disregarded
by the policy maker. The policy maker should think beforehand
about possible ways of communicating about the strategic policy
to the intended policy taker, and the policy itself should at least
contain, announce, or support the use of one or more policy
instruments within the four dimensions. When there is an
expected negative influence within a dimension the policy maker
has to counterbalance that influence by using a positive
instrument, preferably within that same dimension. The research
results of the creating a level playing field policy clearly indicate
that for instance the mere use of the legal instrument ( e.g. the
European procurement guidelines) is not enough to change
behaviour and to counterbalance negative influences coming from
within the technical dimension and the experience/knowledge
dimension. Although it might prove to be possible to use
legislative measures or financial investments as a positive
instrument within one dimension to counterbalance a negative
influence in another dimension, the instrument needs to be strong
enough to convince the policy taker that there is a relative
advantage big enough to disregard the negative signals coming
from the other dimensions.



Research On Open Innovation


1. Arrowsmith, S. & Kunzlik, P. (2009). Social and

environmental policies in EC Procurement Law, Cambridge:
University press.

2. Barret, S. (2004). Implementation Studies: Time for a

Revival? Personal Reflections on 20 Years of Implementation
Studies. In Public Administration 82 No. 2, pp 249-262.

3. Dunn, W.N. (2008). Public policy analysis, New Jersey:

Pearson Education.

4. Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. In

Planning Practice and Research 15-4, pp 299-318.

5. Fenger, H.J.M. & Klok P.-J. (2008). Beleidsinstrumenten, In

Hoogerwerf, A. & Herweijer, M. (Eds.) Overheidsbeleid,
Deventer: Kluwer.

6. Gosh, R. (2010).Guidelines on Public Procurement of Open

Source Software, Brussels: IDABC.

7. Hertogh, M.L.M. (1997). Consequenties van controle, The

Hague: VUGA.

8. De Lange, M. (1995). Besluitvorming rond strategisch beleid,

Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

9. Van Loon, S. (2008). Licentieweigering als misbruik van

machtspositie, Amsterdam: DeLex.


Research On Open Innovation

10. Maarse, J.A.M. (1991). Hoe valt de effectiviteit van beleid te

verklaren? In Bressers A. & Hoogerwerf A. (Eds.)
Beleidsevaluatie, second edition, Alphen aan den Rijn:
Samson HD Tjeenk Willink,122-135.

11. Mifsud Bonnici, J.P. (2008). Self-regulation in cyberspace,

12. The Hague : T.M.C. Asser Press.

13. Rogers E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. London: Simon

& Schuster Ltd.


Research On Open Innovation


Dr. Mathieu Paap LLM works as a lecturer and researcher

at the department of legal theory, section Law and IT of the
University of Groningen. He is intereed in the legal, ethical and
sociological aspects of the information society. He graduated with
a Maers degree on Law and ICT and he received his PhD on a
multidisciplinary research project (Law, Public Adminiration,
Innovation and Technology Management) regarding open source
and open andards policy resiance in IT procurement. He has
been project coordinator and/or researcher for several Dutch
research projects (e.g. on andardization policy compliance for
the Dutch miniry of Economic Aairs, on semantic
interoperability andards for the miniry of Juice, and on eCase management, an international research for the judicial
organizations). He is chief editor of the Ars Aequi Law book on
Dutch Internet law, and editor of the academic journal
"Tdschrift voor Internetrecht". He is a board member of the
Internet Society (ISOC-nl), and a member of the Dutch
governments Commission of procurement experts.


Research On Open Innovation


Research On Open Innovation

E-Governance in Public Sector

ICT Procurement: What is Shaping
Practice in Sweden?

By Bjrn Lundell71
Is it reasonable to require any person or organisation to
purchase specific software in order to be able to
communicate with a governmental organisation? This
queion is at the heart of an ongoing debate in many
countries within the EU, because of its implications for
accessibility, transparency, democracy, and fairness in
procurement and markets. In this paper we consider the
inability of many Swedish governmental organisations to
communicate in open formats, and report on an
inveigation into policy formulation which has led to this
situation in one sector local government. We conducted
a survey of all municipalities in Sweden. The final
response rate was 99%, after 4 months and a maximum of
7 reminders. We find that there is little or no evidence of
consideration given to document formats when procuring
software. And in a large majority of cases, there is no
documentation of any decision process. Further,
organisational adoption of application suites seems more
influenced by tradition and a desire to upgrade exiing IT

Reprinted from Lundell, B. (2011) e-Governance in public sector ICT

procurement: what is shaping practice in Sweden?, European Journal of
ePractice, 12(6). The text is subject to a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5 licence. The original text can be found
at and the full licence can be
consulted at licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/


Research On Open Innovation

infraructure than by any form of analysis and evaluation

prior to purchase. In several municipalities specific
applications are even named in procurements, which is in
conflict with EU directives. There is also considerable
confusion among respondents related to the dierence
between application and file format. We make a number of
recommendations. Evaluation of document formats should
always precede decisions on application and should
include interoperability and lock-in considerations.
Municipalities mu take responsibility for the evaluation
of both document formats and oce applications before
adoption. Further, when assessing the total co of
ownership the analysis should include consideration of
exit cos in the procurement. The udy highlights a lack
of rategic decision making with respect to accessibility,
and a resultant lack of transparency with respect to ICT


In a public speech in Brussels, Neelie Kroes, then European

Commissioner for Competition Policy, stated that
No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged
to use a particular companys technology to access
government information. (Kroes, 2008)
In a strange twist to this statement, a report commissioned by
the Swedish government (SOU, 2010) on access to public
information states that:
It is not reasonable to require an authority to purchase
new software to be able to provide information in
electronic form.

Research On Open Innovation

Does this represent a stand-off between the rights of an

individual and the rights of government organisations? Or does it
represent a natural tension which needs to be resolved technically?
A clue is contained in the same report:
Even if an agency discloses a public document in
electronic form, it is irrelevant to the individual if that
disclosure is made in such a way that he or she cannot
access that information in readable form. (SOU, 2010)
To resolve this tension, then, there is a need to separate out the
issue of software purchase with the reasonable concern about
public authorities having to maintain many systems to allow
provision of documents in any requested format from the issue
of accessibility of document content. In interoperability terms,
this reduces to a need for agreed standard formats, which can be
supported by many software products provided on many
platforms. This chimes with the recommendation from the
Swedish archiving association TAM-Arkiv (TAM, 2010) for longterm access to documents, namely:
Never use vendor dependent formats for long term
orage if you can avoid it, because they often are too
unable, too unructured, and with dependencies to
dierent suppliers' business rategies. (stress as in the
The recommendation stresses the difficulty of assessing how
long proprietary formats will be supported and finds them
unsuitable for long-term storage. In fact, for decades organisations
in the public sector have been concerned about the need for
avo i d i n g ve n d o r l o c k- i n w h e n p r o c u r i n g I T
infrastructure. (Guijarro, 2007, p. 91)
With growing recognition of the problems associated with
reliance on proprietary formats, there is a commensurate growth
in calls for the use of open standard formats for document

Research On Open Innovation

interchange. An important principle underlying the idea of an

open standard is that it ensures that data can be interpreted
independently of the tool which generated it. This is one of the
main reasons behind the recommendations of the FLOSSPOLS
(2005) project that: open andards should be mandatory for
eGovernment services and preferred for all other procurement of
software and software services. In line with this, we note that
policies on using open document formats in the public sector have
been adopted in a number of European countries, including two of
Swedens neighbouring countries: Denmark (Denmark, 2010;
ITST, 2010) and Norway (Regjeringen, 2009a; Regjeringen,
With the adoption of such policies it is clear that there are
European countries that expect software companies to adopt open
standards if they want their products to be used by the
government. (Fairchild and de Vuyst, 2007, p. 150) One major
justification for this is clear: when people want to interact with
government, in either their role as a citizen or a member of a
business, they want to do so on their own terms. (Borras, 2004,
p. 75)
Over the years, public sector organisations have used a range
of different open and proprietary document formats. ODF (ISO/
IEC 26300:2006) and PDF/A (ISO 19005-1:2005) are two open
standard formats, which have been recognised as international
standards (by ISO) and as national standards in many countries.
Both formats have been adopted and implemented by different
providers of software systems. Two examples of proprietary file
formats are IBMs RFT-format and Microsofts doc-format.
Open standards have been discussed by researchers and policy
makers for a long time (e.g. Bird, 1998; EU, 2004; SOU, 2009).
An open andard (EU, 2004; SOU, 2009) is a andard which has
certain open properties. Such standards can be used as a basis for

Research On Open Innovation

implementation in software systems under different (proprietary

and open source) software licenses. A standard is a published
document that contains a technical specification or other precise
criteria designed to be used consistently as a rule, guideline, or
definition. (BSI, 2010) When a standard is published and its
technical specification contains sufficiently detailed information it
can be used as a basis for implementation in software
applications. For example, the ODF document format has been
implemented by several providers using different (proprietary and
open source) software licenses (e.g. OpenDoc Society, 2011). On
the other hand, the specification of the published Office Open
XML standard (ISO/IEC 29500:2008) contains references to
external web pages (referring to one specific companys own web
site) which are not available. We note that these formats and
standards have been extensively discussed (e.g. Brown, 2010;
MacCarty and Updegrowe, 2009; Tsilas, 2008), but acknowledge
that an analysis of this discussion is beyond the scope of this
From a legal perspective, Swedish and European law for
public procurement aims to achieve procurement practices that
stimulate a fair and competitive market based on the important
principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal
treatment (Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC). These
directives clarify the public procurement process and how
technical specifications can and shall be used in such processes.
An important basis is that technical specifications shall afford
equal access for tenderers and not have the effect of creating
unjustified obstacles to the opening up of public procurement to
competition. Further, a technical specification shall not refer to
a specific make or source, or to a particular process, or to trade
marks, patents, types or a specific origin or production with the
effect of favouring or eliminating certain undertakings or certain

Research On Open Innovation

products. (Directive 2004/17/EC (Article 34) and Directive

2004/18/EC (Article 23)). Only on an exceptional basis (e.g.
when functional requirements cannot be described and for a
subject-matter for which there is no international standard) public
procurement may refer to specific trade marks and products, but
procurement of document formats and office applications is not
such an exception.
In this paper, we first consider the recorded situation with
respect to support for open document formats in Swedish
governmental organisations. We then report on a new study of
policies on document formats and ICT procurement related to
office document processing. The objective is to understand the
influences behind established practice in decision making in
Swedish municipalities, and hence help to explain earlier findings
of a lack of engagement with the issue of document formats.


An earlier study investigated the level to which Swedish local

authorities, health regions and governmental organisations were
unable or unwilling to process an ODF file sent to them (Lundell
and Lings, 2009). ODF was chosen as an exemplar of an open
document format which some European governments insist on
being supported by their organisations.
Less than a quarter of local authorities responded to the ODF
questionnaire; more than two thirds of respondents acknowledged
that they were unable or unwilling to open the document sent to
them in ODF. More than a third listed no open formats as
preferred for receiving documents. However, a large majority
endorsed proprietary formats for such communication.
A part of the investigation was into policies related to the
document formats which were accepted. It was found that an

Research On Open Innovation

understanding of document formats as separate from products

using those formats was very low, and there was a surprising and
worrying lack of associated policies and strategies available. Only
4 percent claimed to have a policy on accepted document formats,
and of these the majority simply endorsed a proprietary format.
Policy making was found not to be transparent, with practice
left to the influences of managers and technicians. There is also
an evident gap between what public organisations have stated
publicly about receiving documents in open formats and what
those same organisations do in practice. There were authorities
which claimed to accept communications in ODF, but were
amongst those failing to open the ODF document sent. The
majority which did open the ODF document responded to the
questions in a proprietary format.
A second investigation looked at practice in local government
with respect to electronic records of important board minutes
(Lundell and Lings, 2010). These are not legally required to be
archived in electronic form; the only legal requirement is for each
municipality to maintain paper copy of the minutes of that board.
It was therefore considered to be a good indicator of practice in
the absence of a legal requirement.
In the study, minutes were requested, in their electronic form,
for the executive boards. It was emphasised that the documents
should be supplied in their stored format. The following minutes
were requested from each: the most recent board meeting; a
meeting from ten years ago; the oldest stored electronically. This
gave a perspective on availability and the document formats used.
It was found that there are already significant gaps in the
electronic archives.
No municipality was found to have a policy with respect to
maintaining electronic copy of executive minutes. In the absence
of a direct duty to preserve electronic copy, paper copy is still

Research On Open Innovation

overwhelmingly seen as the only archive medium. This is in spite

of the fact that Sweden is considered amongst the most advanced
countries in e-Government.
Where electronic copy is kept, it was found that proprietary
and closed formats are overwhelmingly used for public
documents. This was the case even though there was experience
of losing access to documents because of formats which were no
longer supported. Further, there was no evidence that the situation
was changing. No municipality provided a document in a
reusable, open standard document format, in stark contrast with
stated central Government vision.
In fact, in its 2004 IT bill (2004/05:175), the Swedish
government declared that the use of open standards should be
promoted (Regeringen 2005; EU 2005). We also note that the
responsible minister for Swedish municipalities has expressed
support for open standards as defined in European Interoperability
Framework version 1.0 (Odell, 2009), which has also been
adopted in the Swedish e-Government strategy (SOU, 2009).
Further, based on a legal analysis by the Swedish Association of
Local Authorities and Health Regions, there is a recommendation
that citizens should be allowed to communicate with members
using the established open standard ODF (Lundell and Lings,
2009; SALAR, 2007; SALAR, 2008).

Research Method

The research question addressed through this study is the

following. Given that certain document formats are preferred by
municipalities in Sweden, to what extent are these preferences
informed by policies, either related to document formats or to
software procurement?

Research On Open Innovation

The question is made easier to answer in Sweden, which has a

very strict policy on governmental responses to questions: all
questions must be responded to. We sent an email in plain text to
each municipality (290 in all), with follow-up reminders sent over
a three month period. The email contained six requests.
In the first section, the municipalities were asked about
document formats, specifically the format actually used by each
municipality in their earlier communication with us. The first was
a request to supply any policy or strategy document related to
sending out documents in the specified format. The second was a
request to inform us of any organisational decision behind the use
of the specified format, and to supply any documentation. The
third asked for information about any planned revisions to
working practice.
The second section related to software procurement, and in
particular that related to software for writing office documents.
The first two requests were for factual information about the
application primarily recommended within the municipality: what
is it and when was it (or an earlier version of it) first introduced
into the organisation? The third was a request for the documented
decision (along with any other related documents) for the most
recent procurement related to the application.
The study resulted in both quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative data was analysed to gauge the overall position with
respect to informed decision making about document formats and
office applications. The text of responses, together with that of
any supplied documents, was analysed qualitatively, to give some
insight into the real state of practice.


Research On Open Innovation

Responsiveness To The Queionnaire

The request email was sent to the registered address of each

municipality. A municipality is required to respond promptly (at
least with an acknowledgement), usually interpreted to mean
within 24 hours. If no response was received within a working
week, then a reminder was sent. This continued with, after the
second reminder, increased emphasis that the email included a
request for public documents that they are required by law to
respond to.
This resulted in the response profile shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Evolution of response rate over time

As can be seen, 20% (59) of the municipalities responded to

the initial request within 3 working days. A reminder elicited
further responses, resulting in a 42% response rate (122) after 3
weeks. After a second reminder, the majority (59%) had
responded. The final response rate after 4 months was 99%.
Overall, a maximum of 7 reminders was used, although many
further interactions were required to probe more deeply when
initial responses were inadequate. Four municipalities failed to

Research On Open Innovation

Some delays were evidently caused by confusion over who

should respond, no individual feeling able to respond to all
requests. This meant that the email was circulated within the
organisation. In some cases this resulted in partial answers being
given from different parts of an organisation primarily a split
between answers to the two sections of requests. The second
section was often answered by the ICT department. This even
resulted in different responses being made to the same request by
different people within the same organisation. In a small number,
one ICT department served several municipalities. This caused
initial confusion over whether an individual response had been
made on behalf of more than one municipality.
A few municipalities explicitly declined to respond and some
provided partial responses, which were probed further. It is
possible that some people interpreted the email as a survey and
missed the fact that it contained explicit requests for public
documents. A few spent time on a response refuting their
obligation to respond. In these cases, a simpler request for the
required documents was sent (with reminders) which did elicit
some responses.
We estimate that, for a well organised authority, it should take
less than ten minutes to respond to the email (we have anecdotal
information which reinforces this), so it is unlikely that resource
demand was a significant factor in a decision not to respond, or in
an extreme delay in responding.

Observations From The Analysis

Few municipalities have a documented policy regarding the

use of document formats (see Table 1).


Research On Open Innovation

Documented policy for document format Percentage of

Responded yes


Responded no


Decline to respond


Table 1: Exience of a documented policy on document formats

Only 2% of all (290) Swedish municipalities claimed to have a

documented policy for the practice of sending out documents in
the specific formats used by their municipality. By far the
majority (95%) specifically responded that there was a lack of
documented policy/strategy. The remaining 3% declined to
In total, 19% of all municipalities supplied documents in
response to our request for evaluations and decisions related to
document formats and office applications. However, only 8% of
all municipalities supplied relevant documents. Among the
documents considered not to be relevant were web publication
policies; layout instructions; and instructions for how to write
documents. It should be noted that no municipality provided a
TCO analysis which considered exit costs related to a possible
selection of a proprietary document format.
A clear majority (92%) of all municipalities recommend and
support MS Office as the primary office application in their
municipality for writing office documents; 5% of all
municipalities did not mention any office application, or declined
to respond on this point.
Most municipalities primarily recommend and support only
one office suite for writing office documents. Overall, 86% of all
municipalities only recommend and support MS Office in their
administration, and 3% only recommend and support A number of municipalities recommend a

Research On Open Innovation

combination for their own administration: 5% a combination of

MS Office and, and 1% a combination of MS
Office and StarOffice. Another 4% recommend MS Office for
their administration, but for (some or all of) their
schools (see Table 2).

Preferred office suite (tools) Percentage of preference by

for writing office documents
MS Office



MS Office &


MS Office & StarOffice


MS Office (for administration)

& OpenOffice (for schools)


Table 2: Preferences for oce applications

With few exceptions, municipalities do not undertake any

evaluation of either document formats or office applications
before adoption. For example, one municipality responded:
No formal, political decision exis; neither is there
any documentation or evaluation.
Further, the lack of a documented decision related to the
selection or procurement of an office application is common to
most municipalities. In some, decisions are taken locally with
roll-out throughout the organisation without any evaluation: The
decision was taken by our IT advisory board; no direct evaluation
was done. An organisation-wide adoption was made for all units.
In some municipalities, the lack of documented evaluations
and decisions make the authority defensive, so that except for
supplying a copy of the signed contract with their supplier they
refuse to elaborate: Referring to the above, we report that the

Research On Open Innovation

procurement of our oce suite was done through the Select

Agreement. We decided on Microsoft Oce and attach the
agreement with Microsoft. We decline to answer your queions.
Of the municipalities claiming to do some kind of evaluation,
most seem totally dependent on processes for IT procurement
provided by central agencies for public sector procurement in
Sweden, such as Kommentus and Kammarkollegiet. For example,
such dependency is clearly illustrated in this response from one
municipality: There has been no local procurement as we
participate in SKL Kommentus ABs and Microsoft's Select
These central agencies are dedicated to supporting
municipalities and other public sector organisations by
establishing central contracts from which each municipality calls
off licences for office applications. For example, one municipality
cites the evaluation performed by the central agency in their
response on evaluation, stating that they have used the
coordinated procurement of software (Microsoft Select) by
Kommentus since the mid-1990s. Common evaluation criteria
include price, delivery times and other parameters. From their
complete response it was made clear that the evaluation
performed by Kommentus has been their only evaluation, which
implies that they have been dependent upon this centrally
performed evaluation for around fifteen years. Several
municipalities gave similar responses. There is evidence of a
common view that some form of evaluation of the office
application itself (i.e. the product) is being performed in such
central procurement activities.
However, the evaluation of office applications undertaken by
Kammarkollegiet and Kommentus does not address functionality,
licensing or pricing of office applications. Instead, their
evaluation is entirely focused on evaluating the reseller. Hence,

Research On Open Innovation

even if a municipality signs such a central procurement

agreement, there is still a need for them to undertake their own
evaluation and analysis of document formats and office
applications in order to assess the product before adoption.
Amongst the municipalities that actually have undertaken
evaluations that consider file formats, one responded that a
decision was made to andardise on file format, rather than
product. A few municipalities report that they have initiated
work on developing a policy for document formats: We are
working on developing a policy document that describes how and
in what format external document are communicated. We will
certainly decide that documents that should not be edited mu be
in PDF format and others mu be sent in a non-proprietary
format, RTF or possibly ODF. Today we have .doc as the
document default.
Overall, we found that a clear minority (1%) of all
municipalities have considered format prior to purchasing office
Amongst municipalities that have evaluated applications there
are mixed views on applications, and outcomes of evaluations
differ. For example, a municipality that evaluated
found that it fulfilled their needs: Since OpenOce has all the
required features and also implied a financial saving the choice
has not been dicult. On the other hand, a municipality that
introduced MS Office concluded differently and recommended
MS Office 2007 after their evaluation: [Microsoft Oce] was
introduced in the mid-1990s and was evaluated in 2007, along
with OpenOce 2.4 ... Primarily we recommend MS Oce 2007.
This further reinforces the need for local evaluation.
From the responses it was clear that there is considerable
confusion amongst respondents related to the difference between
application and file format. Amongst the responses concerning
application, respondents mentioned specific names of suppliers

Research On Open Innovation

and applications (in almost all such cases the responses included
one or both of Microsoft and Word), whereas in other cases
responses referred to specific versions of a specific office suite
(e.g. MS Office Word 2007). Regarding responses for file
formats, respondents mentioned suppliers (e.g. Microsoft),
applications (e.g. Word), and formats (e.g. Microsoft
formats), and in several cases initially gave incomplete, unclear,
and confused responses. In general, from the number of requests
for clarification (via email and over the telephone) we note that
many respondents do not see a difference between applications
and a file formats.
Most municipalities primarily focus their attention on
adopting an office application; the file format issue is treated as a
consequence of the application choice. For example, one
municipality responded that they consider applications as
standards and have decided to use these with their default file
formats: [The municipality] views Microsoft Word and Adobe
(i.e. doc and pdf) as de facto andards and has chosen to use
them without major evaluation. Several others acknowledge that
they lack a policy on document formats, but respond that the
choice of format is implicitly determined from the choice of
application: We do not have any specific document that regulates
document formats. Inead it is determined over time by
monitoring the software version agreed within the municipal
organization. Yet other municipalities report that, without a
decision, they just use the default format which is supported by
their application: there is no written decision with regard to
document formats, but in practice .docx is the default setting.
A number of municipalities have a practice of renewing
licenses. Renewal of licences is usually being done without
evaluation, perhaps over many years. In many cases, the
procurement decision dates from a very long time ago. In other

Research On Open Innovation

cases, municipalities use centrally procured agreements for

renewal of licenses (so it is not considered a new procurement).
For example, one municipality responded: We have not bought
the software, rather we have held licenses since 1992. These
licenses have been extended since then and upgraded on a
continuous basis. No procurement was done in 1992. A different
municipality adopted a proprietary product and the office suite
has not been evaluated since then: In 1997 it was decided that
the municipality would use the zac-concept (zero management
concept) which is a Microsoft-oriented approach. Since then, the
Microsoft platform has not been evaluated. Procurements that we
do therefore are for MS Oce licenses.
Evaluation of file formats and office applications for a
municipality cannot be undertaken in isolation of already adopted
IT-systems due to various kinds of potential lock-in problems.
Therefore, any evaluation and adoption of an office suite needs to
consider other systems which have already been adopted. Several
responses in the survey indicate that other systems already in use
in the municipalities are perceived to dictate requirements on the
document format and the office application. Hence, the responses
indicate several examples of different kinds of lock-in scenarios,
including format lock-in and vendor lock-in. Most such systems
require the proprietary .doc format, which makes migration to the
open document format (ODF) difficult. For example, one
municipality responded that many of the IT syems that we
already use, or that we intend to procure within the adminirative
sections, are integrated with, and in some cases totally dependent
on, functionality and components in MS Oce.
Interoperability is critical for municipalities, but several
responses indicate that such vendor lock-in is problematic. As
illustrated by one respondent: Today, suppliers of enterprise
support syems to the municipalities are tightly tied to Microsoft

Research On Open Innovation

software. This means that in practice it is very dicult to use open

source software to break the hegemony that exis.
In many municipalities a different policy is adopted in schools
since interoperability problems related to other legacy systems in
the municipality is less of an issue. Overall, our responses
indicate that in municipalities where there is less perceived lockin they are more open to alternatives, as illustrated by this
response from one municipality: Within adminiration, where
application providers have selected the Microsoft track, we are
forced to use their oce suite. In schools, only OpenOce is
used. Other responses showed that evaluation for schools in
some cases is based on other factors for office applications: the
discussion at the time was that Microsoft had the large market
share among companies and municipalities and that it was a
good platform for udents to learn
The practice of sending out and receiving documents varies.
Although several municipalities accept PDF there is a clear
dominance of using proprietary document formats. For example,
one municipality responded that: We send out documents in the
format in which it is easie to send them. In mo cases, this
is .pdf or .doc. Two municipalities go so far as to expose, on their
public website, which formats they accept: [XXX] municipality
can only receive files which are in one of the following
formats: .doc, .txt, .pdf, .xls
There is evidence of a limited but increasing awareness of
issues related to document format and application options,
including archiving. Some municipalities are beginning to
separate out the issue of application from format, and are looking
towards archiving needs, as illustrated by this response: Open,
platform independent, and archive secure file and document
formats are important.
In addition to the vast majority of municipalities that use the
proprietary .doc format for external and internal communication

Research On Open Innovation

there is also a small group using ODF as a format for internal

communication. One municipality responded: If you are
intending to send internally, it mu be in ODF format. However,
in this group .doc is still used for communication with citizens.
Amongst municipalities that have adopted ODF, responses show
an awareness of the need to be flexible and behave accordingly, as
illustrated by the response from one municipality: Internally, we
use ODF. In external contact with partners, we are flexible and
can adapt to who we are corresponding with, such as using .doc,

Recommendation For Practice

According to the results of the study, municipalities (or some

other national public sector organisation) must take responsibility
for the evaluation of both document formats and office
applications before adoption. Evaluations should be conducted
according to the specific needs of each municipality and its
outcome should always be documented. A municipality cannot
and should not solely rely on central purchasing organisations for
setting policy and for analysis of their own requirements.
Any decision based on evaluation outcomes should be
documented, and renewal of licenses should be treated in the
same way as an initial procurement. Further, evaluation should be
undertaken on a regular basis, and at least before each major
adoption decision. Education policy should not be dictated by
such things as current market share for office applications.
Evaluation of document formats should always precede
decisions on application and should include interoperability and
lock-in considerations. Enterprise support applications should not
be procured if they dictate the use of a specific proprietary
document format or office application. Further, when assessing

Research On Open Innovation

total cost of ownership the analysis should include consideration

of exit costs in the procurement.
Long-term digital archiving is a significant issue for both
municipalities and citizens. It is tightly coupled with formats, both
for preservation and long-term accessibility. A decision on
formats is a policy decision, and must not simply be considered as
a technical issue that follows from an adoption of a specific
office application. Municipalities should standardise (and base
their procurements) on open formats, not on specific office
Citizens should not be expected to buy proprietary software in
order to communicate with municipalities; any policy on format
must specifically address this point, and also any implications of
differences between external and internal communication
practices. From this, we recommend that citizens must be able to
communicate with municipalities using open formats.


This paper has reported on problems for many Swedish

governmental organisations to communicate in open formats. It
specifically reports from an investigation into current practice and
policy formulation which has led to this situation in one sector
local government.
There are many reasons for the reported problems, including a
lack of leadership, awareness and know-how amongst
practitioners and those responsible at different levels in Swedish
municipalities and other public sector organisations.
Most municipalities do not undertake (or even initiate) an
evaluation before procurement of software and adoption of
document formats. In responses, reference is often made to central
procurement agencies, and a number of municipalities seem to

Research On Open Innovation

misinterpret both the scope and focus of evaluation undertaken by

those agencies.
Further, it seems that purchasing of application suites is
largely a matter of history rather than strategic decisions. In some
municipalities specific applications are named in procurements,
which is in conflict with EU directives. This implies that many
municipalities have made themselves over-reliant upon central
Each policy/strategy document received from a municipality
was analysed to reveal how policies and strategies related to
document formats were considered. However, some municipalities
provided documents which did not cover document formats, and
some responses indicated considerable confusion.
In conclusion, we find that there is little or no evidence of
consideration given to document formats when municipalities
procure software. In a large majority of cases there is no formal
evaluation underpinning procurement decisions and no
documentation of decisions. The study highlights a lack of
strategic decision making with respect to accessibility, and a
resultant lack of transparency with respect to ICT procurement.


1. Bird, G. B. (1998). The Business Benefit of Standards,

StandardView, 6 (2), 76-80.

2. Borras, J. (2004). International Technical Standards for eGovernment. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2 (2),


Research On Open Innovation

3. Brown, A. (2010). Microsoft Fails the Standards Test, March

31, 2010,

4. Denmark (2010). Konklusionspapir om anvendelsen af bne

standarder for software i det offentlige. Ministry of Science
Technology and Innovation, January 29, 2010,
filer/aabne-standarder/bilag58.html (in Danish).

5. EU (2004). European Interoperability Framework for panEuropean eGovernment Services, European Commission,
Version 1.0, retrieved (22 January 2008) from http://

6. EU (2005). From an IT policy for society to a policy for the

information society, Nringsdepartementet, published by the
Regeringskansliet, June 30, 2005,

7. Fairchild, A. & de Vuyst, B. (2007). Governmental

Collaboration and Infrastructural Standards in Belgium. The
Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5 (2), 145-152.

8. FLOSSPOLS (2005). An Economic Basis for Open Standards,

Deliverable D4, December 12, 2005,

9. Guijarro, L. (2007). Interoperability frameworks and

enterprise architectures in e-government initiatives in Europe
and the United States. Government Information Quarterly, 24
(1), 89-101.


Research On Open Innovation

10. ITST (2010). Common understanding on the use of open

standards for software in the public sector. National IT and
Telecom Agency, Ministry of Science Technology and
Innovation, January 29, 2010,

11. Kroes, N. (2008). Being Open About Standards. Brussels,

June 10, SPEECH/08/317, European Commissioner for
Competition Policy.

12. Lundell, B. & Lings, B. (2009). Openness to Standard

Document Formats in Swedish Public Sector Organisations. In
Boldyreff, C. (Ed.) Open Source Ecosystems: Diverse
Communities Interacting, IFIP Information Federation for
Information Processing, Vol. 299, Berlin: Springer, 320-329.

13. Lundell, B. & Lings, B. (2010). How open are local

government documents in Sweden? A case for open standards.
In Agerfalk, P. et al. (Eds.) Open Source Software: New
Horizons, Berlin: Springer, 177-187.

14. MacCarthy, M. & Updegrove, A. (2009). Competition in

Office Suite Programs, Unpublished Manuscript, May 11,
retrieved (12 January 2011) from:


Research On Open Innovation

15. Odell, M. (2009). Innovations for Europe: Increasing Public

Value, European Public Sector Award, Public Speech,
Maastricht 5 November, 2009,

16. OpenDoc Society (2011). OpenDoc Society, retrieved (12

January 2011) from

17. Regeringen (2005). Regeringens proposition 2004/05:175

Frn IT-politik fr samhllet till politik fr IT-samhllet, Prop.
2004/05:175, Stockholm, June 30, 2005, http:// (in Swedish).

18. Regjeringen (2009a). Nye obligatoriske IT-standarder for

staten vedtatt, Fornyings- og Administrasjonsdepartementet.
Press release: July 2, 2009,
fad/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2009/nye-obligatoriske-itstandarder-for-stat.html?id=570650 (in Norwegian).

19. Regjeringen (2009b). Referansekatalog for IT-standarder i

offentlig sektor, Ministry of Government Administration,
Reform and Church Affairs, Version 2.0, June 25, retrieved
(22 December 2009) from
dokumentarkiv/stoltenberg-ii/fad_2006-2009/nyheter-ogpressemeldinger/pressemeldinger/2009/nye-obligatoriske-itstandarder-for-stat.html?id=570650 (in Norwegian).

20. SALAR (2007). Digital sopsortering: Att hantera skrppost i

kommuner och landsting, Swedish Association of Local
Authorities and Health Regions, December, ISBN:
978-91-7164-296-7 (in Swedish).


Research On Open Innovation

21. SALAR (2008). Lagrummet: Hantering av bifogade filer,

Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Health
Regions, 11 January, retrieved (8 February 2009) from http:// C=6621 (in Swedish),
website now defunct.

22. SOU (2009). Strategi fr myndigheternas arbete med efrvaltning, Statens Offentliga Utredningar: SOU 2009:86, eDelegationen, Finansdepartementet, Regeringskansliet,
Stockholm, retrieved (19 October 2009) from http:// (in

23. SOU (2010). Allmnna handlingar i elektronisk form offentlighet och integritet. Statens Offentliga Utredningar,
SOU 2010:4, Regeringskansliet, Stockholm, retrieved (13
April 2010) from
c6/13/90/17/0de3bc8e.pdf (in Swedish).

24. TAM (2010). Rekommendation - Format fr lngtidslagring.

Version 1.0, March 11, Bromma:TAM-Arkiv, retrieved (16
A p r i l 2 0 1 0 ) f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. t a m - a r k i v. s e / p d f /

25. Tsilas, N.L. (2007). Enabling open innovation and

interoperability: recommendations for policy-makers. In
Janowski, T. and Pardo, T.A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1st
international conference on Theory and practice of electronic
governance (ICEGOV '07), New York: ACM, 53-56.



Research On Open Innovation

Dr. Bjrn Lundell has been researching the Open Source

phenomenon for a number of years. He co-lead a work package in
the EU FP6 CALIBRE project (2004-2006) and was the technical
manager in the indurial (ITEA) research project COSI
(2005-2008), involving analysis of the adoption of Open Source
practices within companies. He is the project leader for the Open
Source Action (OSA)-project (2008-2010), and the project leader
for a Nordic (NordForsk) OSS Researchers Network (2009-2012).
His research is reported in over 60 publications in a variety of
international journals and conferences. He is a founding member
of the IFIP Working Group 2.13 on Open Source Software, and
the founding chair of Open Source Sweden, an indury
association eablished by Swedish Open Source companies. He
was the organiser of the Fifth International Conference of Open
Source Syems (OSS 2009), which was held in Skvde, Sweden.


Research On Open Innovation

FOSS Governance And Collaboration:

From A Good Idea To Coherent Market


By Shane Coughlan72
Free and Open Source Software (sometimes called Open
Source or FLOSS, and referred to in this paper by the
commonly used term FOSS) is an approach to software
that emphasises the freedoms provided to end users.
Originally formulated in 1983 by a computer scienti
concerned with access to technology, it has become a
central component of mainream IT. The popularity of
FOSS has produced a wealth of related terminology and
perspectives which occasionally lead to confusion about
what it actually is and what are the be ways to engage
with the field. This paper will address such confusion by
providing a clear overview of FOSS, how it works, and
why it is successful. It will go back to fir principles in
defining FOSS, explaining the concept of licensing that
underpins it, and examining how this paradigm facilitates
multiple development and business models. The key
assertion is that the productive application of FOSS relies
on good governance and active collaboration. While it is
dicult to determine which precise governance model (or
models) may be be suited to the long-term suenance of
FOSS as an approach to developing knowledge products,
the indicators provided by the previous two decades


Reprinted from Coughlan, S. (2011) Journal of Economics, No. 29 (Special

Issue), The Facility of Law and Literature, Shimane University, Japan.

Research On Open Innovation

sugge that FOSS governance will continue to be

eectively refined by its akeholders.

Dening And Underanding FOSS

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is an approach to

software that facilitates multiple development and business
models. It is best characterised as a software paradigm. A
software paradigm (also referred to as a software model) helps
contextualise how stakeholders will create, distribute and/or use
the software on computers. There are different software
paradigms that compete for attention, investment and marketshare in the modern business environment. The two predominant
software paradigms are termed proprietary and FOSS, with the
criteria for differentiation being based on the level of control over
software that each facilitates. With proprietary software, control
tends to lie primarily with the vendor, while with FOSS control
tends to be weighted towards the end user.

The Origin Of FOSS

FOSS originated in the USA during the early 1980s. While in

the early years of computer science it was common for people to
share software relatively freely, the concept of selling software
untied to physical hardware had begun to change this practice.
What is termed the 'Software Industry' started in the early 1960s,
and by the late 1970s it had grown significantly, due in no small
part to the development of the personal computer in the
mid-1970s and the rise of companies such as Microsoft.73 The


Research On Open Innovation

tension between those who wanted to share software technology

and those who wanted to charge for access to software is
illustrated by a letter Bill Gates wrote to the Homebrew Computer
Club in 1976.74 Entitled 'An Open Letter to Hobbyists', it charged
that the practice of sharing code damaged the ability of people to
produce good software.75
In 1983 Richard Stallman, an employee at MIT's Artificial
Intelligence laboratory, decided to formalise the concepts behind
the sharing of software technology. He founded a project to create
a complete FOSS operating system that was compatible with Unix
called the GNU Project.76 This project also necessitated the
development of terminology to describe how and why the FOSS
paradigm worked.77 In 1985 this emerging 'Free Software
Movement' consolidated with Mr Stallman's establishment of the
Free Software Foundation, the formal publisher and maintainer of
the first and the most popular FOSS licences.78

The Denition Of FOSS

FOSS is not simply an aspiration to share software. It is a

formally defined set of attributes applied to compliant software.
The full definition of FOSS is hosted on the GNU Project
website.79 A concise overview is provided by Richard Stallman in
his 2002 book, 'Free Software, Free Society':







Research On Open Innovation

" T h e t e r m F r e e S o f t wa r e i s s o m e t i m e s
misunderstoodit has nothing to do with price. It is about
freedom. Here, therefore, is the definition of Free
Software: a program is Free Software, for you, a particular
user, if:
You have the freedom to run the program, for any
You have the freedom to modify the program to suit
your needs. (To make this freedom effective in practice,
you must have access to the source code, since making
changes in a program without having the source code is
exceedingly difficult.)
You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either
gratis or for a fee.
You have the freedom to distribute modified
versions of the program, so that the community can
benefit from your improvements." 80

These four freedoms have been simplified in certain ways to

illustrated the benefits of the approach. On the front page of the
GNU Project website it suggests that To understand the concept,
you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free
beer.81 Another is to shorten the four freedoms themselves into
the form of 'use, study, share and improve.82

80 (page 26)




Research On Open Innovation

Challenges To Foss From Incumbent

Market Interes

In 2000, Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive Office of Microsoft,

famously likened FOSS to Communism.83 Its advocates would
counter that the FOSS movement is not and has never been a
movement against the principles of financial gain nor is it
inherently anti-corporate. Rather the opposite, in the sense that
FOSS explicitly and purposefully allows commercial
This being said, Richard Stallman contends that key
stakeholders in early software production were acting a way that
he found unethical. He felt they were abusing their position and
by doing so abusing the users of computers. But this assertion is
less of an anti-market stance than an observation regarding
inefficiency and control (given, of course, that we assume markets
are intended to serve the majority participating rather than a
narrow group who control supply and demand):
"The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or
the 68020, had their own operating systems, but none of
them were Free Software: you had to sign a non-disclosure
agreement even to get an executable copy.
This meant that the first step in using a computer was
to promise not to help your neighbour. A cooperating
community was forbidden. The rule made by the owners
of proprietary software was, If you share with your



Research On Open Innovation

neighbour, you are a pirate. If you want any changes, beg

us to make them.
The idea that the proprietary-software social systemthe
system that says you are not allowed to share or change software
is antisocial, that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may
come as a surprise to some readers. But what else could we say
about a system based on dividing the public and keeping users
helpless? Readers who find the idea surprising may have taken
this proprietary-software social system as given, or judged it on
the terms suggested by proprietary software businesses. Software
publishers have worked long and hard to convince people that
there is only one way to look at the issue." 85
Stallman's issue could be described as what people now may
term 'lock-in' and 'market distortion.' His perspective has since
been validated in two critical ways, one being the recent spate of
anti-trust cases and the other being the wholesale commercial
adoption of FOSS precisely because it facilitates competition,
market growth and the maximisation of investment.
Those involved in FOSS did not historically perceive it to be
an extreme movement but rather to be a different to software from
what an incumbent group of self-interested parties wished.
Professor Laurence Lessig sums it up well with his introduction to
'FOSS, Free Society':
"there are those who call Stallmans message too
extreme. But extreme it is not. Indeed, in an obvious sense,
Stallmans work is a simple translation of the freedoms
that our tradition crafted in the world before code. Free
Software would assure that the world governed by code is

85, page 24.


Research On Open Innovation

as free as our tradition that built the world before code."


It is reasonable to suggest that some parties who were

extremely worried about FOSS invested a lot of money and time
trying to challenge its rise in the technology market. One reason
for this is that FOSS as a paradigm presents a significant
challenge to proprietary software as a paradigm. Proprietary
software depends on charging per-copy licence fees to derive the
majority of its profit while FOSS imposes no per-copy licence
fees. The difference between the models can be worth millions of
dollars in upfront fees.
Those working to challenge FOSS's credibility during its
ascendancy to a market-leading position ultimately failed for a
simple reason. FOSS is an approach to software that allows
people to do a great deal with code. Some people - usually
computer scientists like Richard Stallman - understood that FOSS
was a good idea in its early days. Some people - perhaps those
from portfolio management or sales backgrounds - took longer to
understand the benefit. Nowadays all types of parties in all types
of segments tend to see and derive some value from FOSS.

Underanding FOSS Means

Underanding FOSS Licenses

The concept of FOSS describes a way to use, study, share and

improve software, though this alone does not equate to providing
the formal structure required for its potential to be realised.
Stakeholders need to derive and maintain value regardless of their
status of collaborators or competitors, and this leads us inevitably
86, page 18.


Research On Open Innovation

to the common rules - rather than general concept - by which

FOSS transactions are managed. These rules provide a framework
that underpins the realisation of expectations in the field.
The goals of FOSS are realised through licences governed by
copyright law. These licences take a different form compared to
traditional proprietary documents. Instead of providing a narrow
grant of use with a long list of exceptions and restrictions, they
tend to provide a broad grant of use with few restrictions. But
each license differers slightly in the grants it provides, and a
common challenge for adopters of FOSS relates to what licence is
beneficial for their situation.
FOSS licences are often divided into three categories by its
advocates and users; non-Copyleft, weak-Copyleft and strongCopyleft. Therefore Copyleft - while not inherent to Free Software
- is perhaps the most important distinguishing features to
categorise FOSS, and is one of the best places to start when one
seeks to understand how such licenses work.
As with the definition of Free Software, Copyleft was first
defined by Richard Stallman. He wanted to ensure that the GNU
Operating System would be available to people with the four
freedoms he had identified as being important, and he wanted to
ensure this availability would continue in the mid-to-long-term.
"The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just
to be popular. So we needed to use distribution terms that
would prevent GNU software from being turned into
proprietary software. The method we use is called
Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve
the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of a means of
privatising software, it becomes a means of keeping
software free." 87
87, page 28.


Research On Open Innovation

Copyleft says that the freedoms provided with the software

apply to all subsequent users of the software as well. Copyleft is
not an inherent characteristic of FOSS, but rather a way of
maintaining a set of grants applied to the software in question.
This is a distinction sometimes overlooked by people new to
FOSS, leading to confusion when encountering FOSS licences
that provide the ability to use, study, share and improve code
according to the formal definition of the Free Software
Foundation, yet not containing Copyleft provisions.

Some would suggest that non-Copyleft licences are best

because the cooperative model does not require formal statements
of subsequent sharing.88 Some maintain that they want an explicit
Copyleft requirement applied to their code.89 Some parties like the
Free Software Foundation advocate the use of strong-Copyleft
whenever possible.90 Perhaps the most useful guide for adopters
with a pragmatic perspective is popularity. The form of licence is
used by over 50% of FOSS are strong-Copyleft licences such as
the GNU GPL.91 It is most notably used on the Linux kernel,92
most of the GNU Project,93 and other critical technologies like
SAMBA.94 This is probably because strong-Copyleft provides a
very predictable and stable grant for the technology, allowing







Research On Open Innovation

multiple parties to cooperate in using and developing it over

prolonged periods.

Underanding The Mo Popular Foss


The GNU GPL is a very popular FOSS licence, accounting for

over half of the total FOSS licence use according to BlackDuck
Software research.95 The most widely used variant of the GPL is
version 2 of the licence, though version 3 released in 2007 is
becoming increasingly popular and has been adopted by major
code projects like SAMBA.96 It was created to encapsulate the
four freedoms applied to FOSS as effectively as possible for
current and future users, and for this reason it is also a strongCopyleft FOSS licence. Its purpose has never been otherwise, as
Stallman's description of its origin attests:
"The specific implementation of copyleft that we use
for most GNU software is the GNU General Public
License, or GNU GPL for short." 97
Some parties have taken issue with the way that the GPL
contains a preamble that explains its originals and purpose, and
that this makes it a political manifesto as well as a legal
document.98 But one could equally argue the preamble is
measured and makes clear what the document is, as evidenced by
- for instance its first paragraph in version two of the licence:



97, page 29.


Research On Open Innovation

"The licenses for most software are designed to take away

your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU
General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change FOSS--to make sure the software is free for all
its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free
Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose
authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software
Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too."99
While there is little doubt that organisations such as the Free
Software Foundation have a political agenda, FOSS licences such
as the GPL are no more impacted by this then the licences of
proprietary companies are impacted by those parties having a
financial interest in the market. The aims of issuing entities and
the inherent validity of the licenses they issue are two different
As FOSS grew into a mainstream approach in IT, questions
were raised about whether the primary licence used, the GNU
GPL, was actually valid.100 These questions suggested that the
model applied by FOSS was not something that worked in
copyright law, and were immediately contested by essays
produced by figures central to FOSS development.101 Later they
were contested more substantially through court cases against
parties infringing the GPL licence in Europe.102 These cases
resulted in court victories, and were followed by events in the


See for example Andrs Guadamuz (2004) 'Viral Contracts or

Unenforceable Documents? Contractual Validity of Copyleft Licenses',
E.I.P.R. Vol. 26, Issue 8, pp.331-339. Also online at



Research On Open Innovation

USA that further validated the licensing approach103 and its

effectiveness in being applied to commercial transactions.104
Today there is little doubt the GPL is a valid legal document.
Version 2 is well-entrenched in the market, and the growing use of
version 3 has occurred despite some criticism of the document
while it was being drafted.105 This may be indicative that such
criticism, as with criticism directed at earlier versions of the GPL
or at FOSS itself, was largely unfounded. It is also possible to
suggest that criticism of the GPL provoked responses, elaboration
and clarification that contributed to maturing the licence, and
perhaps the paradigm as a whole.

The Governance Of FOSS

The Internet has allowed people to communicate and to work

together across great distances at a lower cost and at a higher
speed than ever before. It has been a powerful driver in reducing
barriers to working with partners and customers to accomplish
goals, what is sometimes referred to as co-innovation.106 In the
software field it is difficult for a single vendor to meet all the
requirements of multiple customers, and it is more effective for
several parties to cooperate on developing and enhancing a shared
platform. This is what increasingly happens, and it has lead to the
commercial sustainability of FOSS projects such as the Linux




Research On Open Innovation

kernel.107 This is because FOSS, a software paradigm built on the

inherent assumption of cooperation and sharing, is a natural
beneficiary of the global trend towards increased cooperation.
One good example is the Linux kernel, which started as a
student project,108 and has grown into the core of an operating
system used in a wide variety of fields with financial backing
from companies like Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC,
Novell, and Oracle.109 Linux is GPL software designed to run on
many types of computer, and it is developed through a world-wide
cooperative project on the Internet.110 Given its scale and success,
it provides an excellent example of co-innovative development
inside the FOSS paradigm. It is structured into teams with leaders
who consolidate work, and a handful of key developers that then
combine the components into the final product. There is a
relatively low barrier to entry regarding participation in
development, and each individual stakeholder will have their own
reasons for investing in the project. What is noticeable is that the
collective output of the parties collaborating is stable, reliable and
widely used in critical industries.

Cooperation As A Laing Mechanism

For Change

Cooperation in creating software has profound implications

for development models and the management of processes, and





Research On Open Innovation

has expanded far beyond the concept of working with a small,

select group of similar companies. That was a template of
interaction tied to the Industrial Revolution, and appears archaic
in a world where instant communication allows an individual in
Shenyang, China to work as effectively as one in London. Modern
cooperation requires the broad sharing of information and tools
without delay between multiple parties and even legal entities,
with an emphasis on reducing access time further to optimise the
benefit of cooperation. An increasing number of formal models
have been emerging to facilitate this, with one example being
'Agile software development,' which places emphasis on the
feedback provided by creative participants to guide further
Such cooperative development is arguably permanent for two
reasons, one systemic and one market-based. From the systemic
perspective, the reduction of barriers and costs to cooperation
have lead to a self-sustaining cycle where new development
models have emerged that increase the efficiency of cooperation,
and in turn foster further optimisation and investment in such
activity. From a market perspective, users are requiring more
complex and interconnected software, and without unlimited
engineering resources, the most efficient way to produce such
software is through building shared platforms with other market
The dynamics of the software industry have altered in the last
two decades. Twenty years ago the dominant proprietary
paradigm resulted in a small number of providers controlling
innovation and serving a large number of users in a fairly static
relationship. However, the emerging FOSS paradigm encouraged
new development models and new software development
processes that moved the decision-making emphasis to users.

Research On Open Innovation

Since the FOSS paradigm gained mainstream traction this has had
a profound effect on the market as a whole. Increased user
involvement in consultation, design, testing and improvement is
noticeable in every approach to software today. One consequence
of this has been to blur the distinction between what constitutes a
user and what constitutes a provider. FOSS notably empowers all
users to become providers at any time of their choosing.

The Many Development And Business

Models Of FOSS

The proprietary software and FOSS paradigms facilitate the

establishment and improvement of various software development
models and processes. These development models may be
hierarchical, loosely managed or unstructured depending on the
given software paradigm and the requirements of the individuals
or organisations working on a project. It would be incorrect to
associate FOSS exclusively with one development or business
model, though new observers or entrants to the FOSS market
occasionally do so. This is perhaps a result of limiting their
research to a narrow range of case-studies or usage models.
Such misconceptions are partly attributable to an essay by
Eric Raymond circulated in 1997 entitled The Cathedral and the
Bazaar,112 and extended into a book published by O'Reilly Media
in 1999.113 The proposition that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs
are shallow" appeared to suggest that the limited, hierarchical and
restricted world of proprietary commercial software ultimately
could not compete with the broad, dynamic and more bazaar-like


Research On Open Innovation

world of FOSS. However, it should be understood that Mr.

Raymond's paper was not originally a comparison of the FOSS
development methodology versus a proprietary development
methodology. It was a criticism of hierarchical structures applied
by the GNU Project (a FOSS project) versus the more flat
management structure of the Linux Project (a FOSS project).114
Misunderstandings regarding the organisation and
management of FOSS are not isolated to development models.
From the perspective of the traditional proprietary software world
it can be difficult to understand the approach taken with FOSS,
and some parties have questioned its validity as a commercial
approach.115 However, concern with regards viable business
models and FOSS tend to arise when parties have a preconception
that per-unit licence costs are an inherent requirement to qualify
as commercial software. While FOSS allows a wealth of business
models to be applied, per-unit licensing costs is not one of them.
Per-unit revenue models would either have to prevent sharing
of code to maximise their market and thus undermine one of the
four freedoms defined by the Free Software Foundation, or they
would be circumvented by users who would have a choice of
paying the originator for a copy of the software or getting one
from a third-party without cost.
There are many business models applicable to FOSS for the
same reason that FOSS facilitates multiple development models;
this paradigm provides a broad range of parameters that
participants operate inside. Examples of FOSS business models



Research On Open Innovation

Development-related services to produce specialised

products, such as bespoke product customisation for
Integration-related services to ensure that products work
with existing systems, such as in Enterprise intranets, SME
office networks and banking communication systems.
Support-related services to maintain deployed solutions,
particularly in the SME, governmental and enterprises sphere.
Software as a Service to deliver application functionality
over a network, such as in Web 2.0 companies or search
companies like Google.
Cloud computing to deliver processing functionality over a
network, such as those provided by companies like Sun
Mixed-models combining FOSS and proprietary software,
such as the product offerings from Oracle with GNU/Linux and
their proprietary enterprise database running on top.
Dual-licensing models where code is released under both a
FOSS and a proprietary licence.

The most common FOSS business models in the server and

workstation market segment tend to be support provision across
multiple products (i.e. like IBM)116 or support provision for a
branded family of products (i.e. like Red Hat).117 While duallicensing used to be relatively common, the best known
companies such as MySQL and Trolltech did not scale beyond
being multi-million dollar enterprises and were instead acquired
by multi-billion dollar corporations. Since then the visible side of




Research On Open Innovation

their business has tended to be focused on the FOSS element of

the product offering rather than the proprietary.
Embedded companies (those that make telephones, routers
and other small computing devices) now frequently make use of
FOSS. The business models applied tend towards mixed-model,
with a FOSS platform being used to provide basic services, and
perhaps a proprietary series of components to provide a
differentiator. The LiMo Foundation's work in the mobile
sphere118 or MontaVista's products in the embedded networking
sphere provide examples of this.119
In network services there are a great variety of companies
using FOSS. Most notable is perhaps Google, which uses FOSSbased technologies to power its infrastructure, and makes a
modified FOSS operating system available for its employees
workstations.120 Because Google primarily provides network
services, rather than focusing on the distribution of software, the
use of FOSS has very little impact on their business model except
to reduce costs, and their modifications to FOSS code do not
generally have to be distributed. This has come under some
criticism as effectively using FOSS without fully participating in
the paradigm.121 However, regardless of what one thinks of their
use of the code, Google's business model has proven highly
successful. In essence, they used FOSS to facilitate infrastructure
that would have cost billions to build as proprietary software for a
far smaller sum, and they leveraged this advantage to provide
services above the traditional limits of their corporate scale and




Research On Open Innovation

Ultimately the number of possible business models applicable

to FOSS make it impossible to pick out any one as a clear
favourite. As with any field of business, the correct model
depends on market segment analysis, an understanding of skills,
and a prudent balance between maximisation of profit and
sustainability. There is no 'FOSS business model' in the singular
sense; the licences used in the field provide broad grants that
foster a wide range of approaches.

Underanding The Governance Of


The early governance of FOSS was understandably centred on

the licenses that govern FOSS transactions. There was a narrow
focus on compliance because it was regarded as the critical issue
for minimising risk in adoption and deployment, and that was the
critical issue facing early users. However, as the stakeholders in
the field became more sophisticated, so too did their approach to
governance, and this lead to a shift in perspective towards
understanding governance as a tool to maximise value while
honouring obligations. This is a related but wider concept than
reducing risk.
For early adopters of FOSS the most common problems
encountered can be summarised as having their roots in two key
issues; people didnt read the licenses properly, or they read them
but didnt follow the terms. The solution to these problems were
equally simple; people had to read the licenses in question and
follow their terms. Nevertheless, new adopters frequently
encountered issues, with some notable cases being GPL-


Research On Open Innovation versus Sitecom,122 versus DLink123 and SFLC versus 14 companies.124 A lack of
understanding or a lack of process maturity can generally be
proposed as a reasonable explanation for these occurrences.
As FOSS stakeholders became more understanding of how
FOSS provides value - namely through collaboration between an
ever-changing pool of third parties - they also became more
nuanced in their understanding of the governance necessary to
provide maximum benefit. This resulted in a shift from policy in
the form of lists of accepted or rejected licenses, code or
deployment approaches towards more nuanced processes that
provided the flexibility to adopt new technology and adapt to
changes in licensing or market demands. This tended to be
intertwined with the evolution of participants in how they
approach the field as a whole. If one understands the value of
FOSS to be found in the collaborative energy centred around
common frameworks, then stakeholder maturity will see an
increasing shift from relative isolation as an entity to
collaboration as a participant in a community.
While early FOSS governance used to be focused on
understanding licenses as obligations, the mature governance of
FOSS is about the questions that lifecycle management raises,
namely what type of code do you use and why?, how do you
manage change to ensure continual improvement?, how do you
ensure your obligations are met? and how is this applied
through the supply chain from inception to end-of-life for each
product or solution involved? Stakeholders become more active



Research On Open Innovation

buying or developing the processes to manage code, training

people internally to obtain value while minimising risk, and doing
the same for the supply chain on which they depend. This is a
natural consequence of seeking to maximise potential through
shared rules to improve collaboration.

The Emergence Of Market Solutions

There are many services, products and collaborative platforms

that contribute to governance in the FOSS marketplace. None
solves every challenge that the paradigm can raise, but many
deliver utility to new entrants and experienced stakeholders alike,
providing avenues for minimising risk, improving efficiency and
dealing with suppliers or customers. One example is FOSSBazaar,
a community for sharing governance data that was initiated by HP
via the Linux Foundation, and which continues to over a broad
range of general material and commentary today.125 Others
include comprehensive commercial solutions that have appeared
from companies like BlackDuck Software126 and OpenLogic127
that deliver lifecycle management, the non-profit Linux
Foundation compliance programme,128 and independent FOSS
projects like the Binary Analysis Tool.129
Collaboration is key to deriving value from FOSS and
sustaining it through the development, deployment and support of
products or solutions. This is not about code; the collaboration





Research On Open Innovation

that provides value is not limited to software, but is instead

applicable to the approach required to obtain value in the modern
market. It translates into platform management, and requires
managers, programmers and legal experts to collaborate across
organisational boundaries and nation borders.
Interaction and cooperation around stakeholders is far more
than an aspiration or ad hoc arrangement in the increasingly
mature FOSS-related economy. One example is that the Linux
Foundation helps stakeholders collaborate around Linux in the
US, Europe and Asia by organising meetings, working groups and
conferences to encourage shared understanding and knowledge
sharing.130 Another is the European Legal Network, an invitationbased effort facilitated by Free Software Foundation Europe that
helps 280 stakeholders collaborate across 4 continents, and which
runs private mailing lists, special interest groups and conferences
to share knowledge.131
It is impractical to attempt to list the degree to which
collaboration - or crowd-sourcing - has permeated the global
FOSS economy, but a cursory examination of the Asia-Pacific
region is illustrative of how initiatives like the Linux Foundation
and the European Legal Network are far from isolated. In Japan
collaborative activities are organised by the government via the
IPA132 and the industry via Linux Foundation Japan,133 while
regional organisations like Ruby City Matsue134 have also fostered






Research On Open Innovation

enough momentum to host international conferences.135

Taiwan, the Open Source Software Foundry gives support and
legal advice to help companies use FOSS,136 and a new legal
network modelled on the European Legal Network is also being
prepared for launch.137 In Korea, NIPA is collaborating with
KOSS Law Center and FSFE to develop governance activities,138
with tangible outcomes including the creation of a national legal
network and the launch of a new international conference to share

Increased Governance And

Collaboration Is Driven By The Market

Software is a knowledge product and FOSS is a management

approach for this product. FOSS requires effective governance and
collaboration to create maximum value for every stakeholder
regardless of their individual product range or market segment.
The required degree of cooperation is appearing in national,
regional and global markets with a growing amount of shared
structure visible due to the interconnected nature of the industry.
The outstanding question is probably whether this trend will
continue or some form of market pressure - be it litigation or
alternative methods of deriving value from software proving more






Research On Open Innovation

attractive - will lead to a lack of long-term coherent governance

for the field.
This is more than an idle question. Research by Gartner
previously suggested that 85% of enterprises are already using
FOSS in one capacity or another, and the remaining 15% expect
to use it within twelve months of the survey.140 These figures the
type of market penetration figures previously suggested by UNU
Merit, when in their 2007 report for the European Commission
they suggested that FLOSS-related services could reach a 32%
share of all IT services by 2010, and the FLOSS-related share of
the economy could reach 4% of European GDP by 2010.141
Research shows no indication that the growth of FOSS will slow
at any point in the near future, given fair market access.
This last point may prove to be crucially important. If
competition drives innovation and provides an impartial method
of determining the success or failure of product or business
models, then it is important for fair and equitable competition to
be fostered in markets regardless of the particular approach
chosen by participants. It follows that access to information
regarding interoperability and interaction between software
components is therefore a key requirement in the modern IT
market to foster such competition. Conversely, if fair access is not
provided, then competitive paradigms like FOSS may be hindered
in terms of future market penetration and opportunities despite
their potential utility.

FOSS And Standardisation




Research On Open Innovation

FOSS and standardisation is an area that has drawn increased

interest in recent years, not least due to the challenges FOSS faces
with regards market access and the ability to compete fairly (for a
given value of fairly) against older and more established
approaches to organising the creation, distribution and support of
software knowledge products. This is best exemplified by the
public debate over what became known as MS-OOXML, a next
generation document format. It was suggested that the process
was biased142 and that the grants provided for the proposed
standard were insufficient for FOSS.143
A great deal of the discussion surrounding standardisation and
FOSS centred on patents. The reason for this are the are
fundamentally different goals for patents and standards, as
illustrated by Mr Karsten Meinhold, chairman of the ETSI IPR
Special Committee, when he stated that "IPRs and Standards
serve different purposes: IPRs are destined for private exclusive
use, standards are intended for public, collective use."144 FOSS,
being also designed for public, collective use, tends not to fall into
the normal categorisation of how IPR is positioned.
Patents in standards had previously been managed by grants
such as RAND, and these were considered sufficient for
proprietary software. However, that did not mean that such
conditions facilitated fair market access and competition for all
software paradigms competing in the market. For example, perunit royalty payments would compromise the freedom of people
to share the code, as would terms that did not permit sublicensing.



Research On Open Innovation

Indeed, several FOSS licences have provisions regarding

issues like patents to ensure that the four freedoms defined by the
copyright licence continue in full to all subsequent users. The
GPL is an example of such a licence, and others with the same or
similar provisions actually make up the majority of the FOSS
paradigm. For example, according to BlackDuck Software
research 66.57% of projects use GPL family licences that
explicitly prohibit the application of patent restrictions on covered
software.145 Excluding these licences from a standard would mean
excluding 2/3 of the FOSS model participants from accessing that
standard. That is quite a challenge for FOSS and for markets that
seek to be open, competitive and genuinely innovative, though
debate still continues regarding the best way to address the matter.

Globalisation And FOSS

Globalisation refers to the process of national economies

becoming more open, economics becoming more global than
national, and to the reduction of national controls over economic
matters.146 In effect, changing the world from a loose organisation
of states into a single giant canvas, and providing new
opportunities for people to work together. This concept has
profound implications for cooperative models of innovation and
production, though it is not without its detractors.
The proposition of emerging Globalisation is contested by
globalisation scepticism, a view summed up by Hirst and
Thompsons comment that the closer we looked the shallower
and more unfounded became the claims of the more radical


Ramesh Mishra, Globalisation and the Welfare State, (Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar, 1999), 3-4.

Research On Open Innovation

advocates of economic globalisation.147 For these sceptics there

are international economies but there is no evidence for a truly
global economy.148 This is a valid criticism within the
constraints of their definition, but it can equally be contested as
relevant only in the context of purely economic, rather than
cultural or communicative Globalisation.
Whether one defines Globalisation as an example of
increasing global capitalism or as a deeper and more complex mix
of political, cultural and financial connections, it suggests that the
world is not merely a collection of states with limited
communication and sharing potential. From that perspective, and
therefore from the perspective of technology and business, it does
not matter whether globalisation is a trend towards a global
economy or a collection of increasingly interlinked international
economies. Knowledge, goods and people are far more mobile
now than ever before. Software, a technology that can be easily
transferred through communication networks, is one of the
greatest beneficiaries of this development. It follows that the
current success of FOSS may therefore be partly explicable as a
product of such Globalisation, and that it will inevitably continue
to expand as long as the trend towards increased human
interaction continues.
In this context it is worth noting that the concepts behind
FOSS have blazed a trail in developing the norms required for
massively distributed collaboration, and they have proven to be
influential beyond the field of technology. A key example is that
when Professor Laurence Lessig established the Creative
Commons, and in doing so formalised an approach to foster


Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, Globalization in Question: The

International Economy and the Possibilities, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1999), p2.
Ibid, p16.


Research On Open Innovation

increased engagement and exchange around cultural artefacts, he

drew heavily on the concepts behind FOSS licenses. In the
introduction to Lessig's primary book on cultural sharing, 'Free
Culture,' he acknowledges that his insights do not exist in
isolation, and states:
"The inspiration for the title and for much of the
argument of this book comes from the work of Richard
Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Indeed, as I
reread Stallmans own work, especially the essays in Free
Software, Free Society, I realise that all of the theoretical
insights I develop here are insights Stallman described
decades ago.149


FOSS is an approach to software that emphasises the

freedoms provided to end users, with a particular focus on the
ability of participants to use, study, share and improve technology.
While occasionally misunderstood as being non-commercial,
FOSS has always been conceptualised as something that allows
commercial activity. It is framed by its licences, which range from
providing a simple, non-perpetual grant of the receiving user
freedom (as with the Modified BSD licence) through to providing
such freedom in perpetuity via Copyleft and addressing issues
such as patents (as with the GPL). While still relatively new, most
concerns related to this approach to licensing have been
substantially addressed in courts of law, in industry usage and in
common understanding over the licence terms and their intent.
Today FOSS has become a central component of mainstream IT.

149, page 14.


Research On Open Innovation

The popularity of FOSS has produced a wealth of related

terminology and perspectives, and this occasionally leads to some
degree of confusion or misunderstanding. To address this it is
necessary to go back to first principles in defining FOSS,
understanding the concept of licensing that underpins it, and
examining how it facilitates multiple development and business
models. This leads to a number of useful observations. The first is
that FOSS is a paradigm that facilitates a multitude of
development and business models, barring only those inherently
tied to the concept of per-unit software licence fees. The second is
that FOSS benefits from globalisation, especially in the context of
increasing long-distance cooperation facilitated by the Internet.
This applies equally whether one is concerned with cooperation
between like-minded professionals or with blurring the distinction
between a developer and a user of technology. The third is that the
licences that appear to best support this diversity of choice are
those that provide both common rules for interaction (i.e. terms of
using, studying, sharing and improving) while also delivering a
mechanism for sustaining these rules for subsequent users (i.e.
strong-Copyleft licences such as the GNU GPL).
Once FOSS is understood as a method of deriving value from
knowledge products with an emphasis on collaboration, it
naturally follows that its productive application depends on good
governance and active collaboration. This type of management
structure has been gradually developed by stakeholders using the
same methods applied to the creation of creation of FOSS
knowledge products. though it is worth noting that the current
mechanisms does not fully explain how FOSS potential can be
continually realised by an increasingly diverse eco-system of
stakeholders. While it is evident that FOSS governance is
increasingly sophisticated, it is equally evident that understanding
which model is best suited to the long-term management of

Research On Open Innovation

software is far from trivial in a world with complex supply chains,

products deployed across a multitude of legal jurisdictions, and a
vast array of stakeholders with a multitude of development,
deployment and business models.
However, despite such difficulty in determining which precise
governance model (or models) may be best suited to the long-term
sustenance of FOSS, the indicators provided by the previous two
decades suggest that its management will continue to be
effectively refined by stakeholders. FOSS is well positioned
because it facilitates sharing and cooperation in a world where
such activities tend to easier, cheaper and more effective than ever
before. It is therefore reasonable to assert that FOSS will
continue to benefit from and drive increased openness and
interoperability in the technology market for pragmatic reasons.
In conclusion, as the concepts underlying FOSS are applied to
other creative works such as text, music or images, mainstream
acceptance of this approach to developing and maintaining
knowledge products will increase. Its governance - and therefore
sustainability - will be refined as it scales, and any issues will
gradually be worked out due to stakeholder requirements and
market dynamics.



Research On Open Innovation


Shane Coughlan is an expert in communication methods

and business development. He is well known for building bridges
between commercial and non-commercial akeholders in the
technology sector. His professional accomplishments include
eablishing a legal department for the primary NGO promoting
Free Software in Europe, building a professional network of over
270 legal counsel and technical experts across 4 continents, and
aligning corporate and community interes to launch both the
fir law journal and fir legal book dedicated to Free/Open
Source Software. He has been part of the OIN licensing team
since November 2009 and has lead the team since Augu 2013.
Shane has extensive knowledge of Internet technologies,
management be practice, community building and Free/Open
Source Software. His experience includes engagement with the
server, desktop, embedded and mobile telecommunication
induries. He does business in Europe, Asia and the Americas,
and maintains a broad network of contacts.


Research On Open Innovation


Research On Open Innovation


The Open Versus Closed Debate

By Andrew A Adams


When developing information systems, whether they be

standalone business process support programs for single machines
or internet-spanning user-generated content distribution
mechanisms, various choices that need to be made in the
specification, design and implementation of that system can be
characterised as a choice about openness or closure. Sometimes
these choices are binary in nature (open or closed, with no inbetween), whereas at others its the level of open-ness thats the
question, with a setting available somewhere between fully open
and fully closed. In this paper I discuss the implications of various
types of choice for various business scenarios, and their relation
to general principles of information ethics, such as those espoused
by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the
British Computer Society (BCS) in their relevant codes of ethics.
I begin with a discussion of the business issues to be
considered in free software versus proprietary licenses and the
question of software idea patents, then consider the issue of
communication protocols. The related concept of openness in data
formats is presented next, followed by the concept of community
rather than customers. A brief case study of the issue of openness
in anti-malware information finishes the main body of the paper,
with the final section deriving conclusions about the benefits or
not of openness in these various fields.


Research On Open Innovation


When the words open and closed are mentioned to

software developers, the first ideas to come to mind are almost
certainly the license under which a piece of software will be
released: a free/open source license or a proprietary one. In
addition to the other open or closed elements discussed below,
this question itself is not so simple and clear-cut a question as it
might appear. In addition to the question of release license, and
even this has more to it than a simple consideration, there are also
the questions of development environment and the individual
rights of members of the development teams, the highly vexing
question of software idea patents, and of source code escrow.
These questions also need consideration by customers when
commissioning software as well as by development organisations.

Software Licenses

Software licensing is a complicated concept. As is welldocumented in, for example, Williams (2002), in the early days of
computing, software was principally developed by the hardware
manufacturers as part of a package of selling expensive hardware
to clients, developed for in-house use or developed as part of
research by academics. That all changed in the 70s along with the
d eve l o p m e n t o f p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s . T h e g r ow i n g
commoditisation of hardware computing capacity, as always
happens with commoditisation, drove down the price of the
commoditised good, but also opened up new opportunities for
profit in related goods and services. In computing, this new
market was principally in programs to run on the machines. By
the time Bill Gates was complaining about unauthorised copying

Research On Open Innovation

(Gates, 1976) the lines began to be drawn between the proprietary

and free software approaches. By 1984, Richard Stallman, already
long involved in development of freely shared software such as
the Emacs text editor (whose non-legalistic license was a social
contract and distributed on a basis of communal sharing, which
means that all improvements must be given back to [Stallman] to
be incorporated and distributed (Williams, 2002)) announced the
start of a new project: GNU (GNUs not Unix), dedicated to
building a free (as in speech) version of the Unix operating
system. After much discussion and some soul-searching to find
the sweet spot for embodying the personal freedom
hacker (Williams, 2002; Levy, 2001) ideology, the first version
of the GNU Public License was produced, setting one of the
guiding points of software licensing ever since.

The Scope Of A Software License

Since 1976 in the US150 computer software has been deemed

an artistic or literary endeavour attracting copyright in the
individual expression (but not the actual processes or methods
embodied in the program, see below on Software Idea Patents)
that embodies that program. It was quickly decided that this
extended not only to the source code, which is the actual material
written by the programmer, but also to the resulting executable
object code. Software is, of course, rather different to other types
of written work in that it is useless on its own without hardware
on which to run. However, a decent analogy can be made with


Following fairly quickly in much of the developed world and more slowly

Research On Open Innovation

music which for most people151 written music is useless without

instruments (and for those not musically trained, musicians to
play them) on which to execute the sheet music.
Arguments about the legal reach of software licenses have
been in progress since the first licenses were issued. When one
pays for software, what exactly is one buying? The settled legal
view is that software is licensed, not sold. When one buys
software, one is entering into an agreement whose terms are
principally set by the license offered by the owner(s) of the
copyright. This license may include restrictions on how many
times the software may be installed onto different machines, how
many copies may be running at any one time, and certain
elements of the usage of the software. However, there are also
terms which may not be placed on the purchaser. Users have the
right to decompile the program for the purpose of
interoperability, that is to figure out how to make other
programs communicate with the purchased program. Users
generally have the right to sell on a piece of software (in the US,
under the first sale doctrine (Steffik, 1997) and in the EU under
the exhaustion of rights doctrine (May, 2003)).
Network Associates Inc. included terms for its Virus Scan
software (later in this paper we will discuss anti-malware software
as a case study in openness dilemmas) which restricted users
discussion of the capabilities of the program, and in particular its
relative benchmark tests. The New York State Attorney Generals
Office challenged this license as a matter of public policy and
won the court case152 arguing that restrictions such as this were an

Terry Pratchetts character Lord Vetinari, who reads sheet music for
pleasure without the messy business of musicians getting in the way, aside.

Spitzer v. Network Associates, Inc. dba McAfee Software 758 N.Y.S.2d 466
(Supreme Court N.Y. 2003).

Research On Open Innovation

unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech, not justified in

the protection of trade secrets or goodwill. It was further argued
that in particular the ability to discuss the capabilities and
vulnerabilities (including comparative benchmarking) of security
software was an essential public good that could not be overridden by contract terms.
As discussed in Chandler (2008), the enforceability of
shrinkwrap,153 click-wrap154 and browse-wrap155 licenses
have come under significant scrutiny, as have attempts to restrict
who can use software.
Within the non-proprietary software community there are a
range of positions on how to license software. Some claim that
any restriction on the freedom of others to do what they will with
software is wrong. This idea is embedded in the Berkeley
Software Development (BSD) license which simply requires that
anyone distributing the source and/or object code acknowledge the
original authors copyright and disclaims any liability. Other, such
as the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which develops and
maintains the GNU General Public License (GPL) regard the
share-alike principle (taking someone elses work, and adding a
small amount to it should not allow you to deny similar rights to

Software sold in a cellophane-wrapped box, the details of the license being

inside the box and stating or implying that opening the cellophane wrapping
constitutes agreement to the license.

A software license whose terms are presented to the user when they attempt
to install the software. Typically, the user must select an I agree box or
similar in order for the installation to proceed.

A software license approach legally discredited in the US by Specht v.

Netscape No. 01-7860 (L) (2d Cir., October 1, 2002). A license appears
somewhere on a web page which also includes a link to download the software
thus licensed.

Research On Open Innovation

your users) as paramount to maintaining a free information

infrastructure. Contrary to the belief of some, the GPL does not
constrain programmers to distribute their amendments, nor does it
prohibit charging for providing the amended code. In practice,
however, anyone who does charge could easily find their business
model undermined by a single paying customer who chooses to
then pass the software along without charging a fee. The GPL
does require that the amender gives the redistribution and derived
work production rights to anyone to whom they distribute the
software. There are those who argue that the GPL is not a free
enough license, as mentioned above, and that by imposing the
share-alike principle they are infringing on others rights. There
are others who argue that the GPL is not restrictive enough, but
still in the name of freedom. Thus there are licenses such as the
Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement
which attempts to prohibit governments (in particular) from
distributing amended versions of their software which have been
altered to allow government spying on citizens computer usage.

The Ethics And Business Of Choosing A



Research On Open Innovation

The example of Microsoft (MS), which started complaining

about unauthorised copying156 of their software in 1976 and today
are one of the worlds largest companies, would seem to dictate
that the only sensible business decision to make when writing
software is to use as strong a proprietary license as one can, and
even to reach as far into restricting competition as to limit the free
speech of users with respect to discussing any possible failings of
the software with others. However, as presented below, even for
commercial operations and sound financial reasons, a strong
proprietary license may not be the best choice even for
commercial software producers. For individuals and organisations
commissioning software, or having software written in-house and/
or by contractors the issue is even more blurred.
In some ways it is unfortunate that the unpaid community
effort element of the Hacker Ethic (Raymond, 2001; Loren, 2004)
has come to represent free software as a concept so strongly. The
volunteer hacker working on software in their free time, donating
their time and expertise for the altruistic good of the community,


Piracy is a hideous crime involving the armed hijack of a vessel at sea and
the theft of the cargo and even the vessel itself often while employing savage
violence against the crew and any passengers. The link between this heinous
crime and unauthorised copying of material under copyright is one drawn by
those who cannot justify the status of their holding of copyright, and who must
label the act of copying as something so hideous that no one can argue against
it as the only way of winning their case. The author is with Richard Stallman
on this usage and therefore describes it technically as unauthorised copying.
Even the illegality of such an action is uncertain in many cases without deep
examination of the circumstances not all unauthorised copying is illegal.

Research On Open Innovation

the thrill of producing elegant code157 and the egoboo158 from

public recognition of ones efforts and skills has become not just
the poster-child for free software but the only image many have of
free software developers. However, a significant amount of free
software development is done by people during work time in
ordinary paid computing jobs and while a small proportion of this
may be regarded as a charitable contribution by the
organisation, it is more often the organisational version of
scratching ones own itch than anything else. Other companies
make free software pay sufficiently well to fund its development
in consultancy, bespoke development, or support contracts.
Where software is developed in-house, many managers see the
development and maintenance of this software as a costs centre
only, and may seek to sell the software. For many reasons this is
almost always a mistake, since developing software is a risky
business venture that non-specialists usually fail at, and in
addition the software may well represent (part of) the companys
principal business advantage in its primary field of operation.
However, where the organisation in question is not a competitive
commercial player, but a public sector or non-profit organisation,
then the commercial advantage argument turns on its head. Since
such organisations by their nature should (though for various
political reasons they do not always see this) be interested in
raising the game of others cooperatively. This is particularly

or, in unfortunately too many cases code which the hacker feels is elegant
but which is in fact uncommented unmaintainable spaghetti code.

A term from science fiction fandom derived from ego boost to describe
the pleasure gained from recognition for voluntary works. The prevalence of
science fiction fans in early free software and online communities transferred
the term (and provided some of the impetus behind community efforts as the
driving force) to the free software community.

Research On Open Innovation

true in, for example, local government. In the UK, there has long
been a tradition of sharing in-house software between authorities.
While often not released beyond the club of UK local
government, it is effectively a free software distribution model
within a closed group of separate entities.
So, if one is working within the public/non-profit sector, there
is a strong ethical argument that in-house software developments
should be released under some form of communal access
agreement. Indeed, if there is potential for a broader utilisation of
such software beyond the relevant type of organisation, then a
strong argument can be made that there is an ethical duty to
release the software more widely. This argument has strengthened
over the last fifteen years (such software products and sharing
have existed long before then) with the development of effectively
free systems for distribution of such software, for example via the
Free Software Foundations website or the Sourceforge site. As
we discuss below, similar arguments can be made regarding the
ethical argument for public sector organisations to use open data
formats and to make some of the data they generate freely
available in such formats.
Even for commercial companies with specific needs,
developing in-house software under a free software license may
be a sensible business decision. The adoption of a free software
license approach allows the development team to incorporate
elements of existing free software as part of their system. In-house
systems teams need to be aware of the necessity to ensure that
management, particularly management outside the technical
department, are aware of the decision to use free software and
need to keep good documentation on the origins of their code. In
particular, it is incumbent upon IT staff to ensure that any
suggestion of taking in-house developed systems and distributing
them is provided with clear guidelines on the status of the

Research On Open Innovation

inherited code and the implications of its license for any such

Commissioning Software

So far we have focussed on the license adopted by an in-house

team developing software for internal use. However, many
businesses use external software companies for their bespoke IT
needs. Questions of licensing on the side of the commissioning
company need careful consideration, which they often do not get.
Many software houses will take a line on licensing that tries to tie
in the commissioning company to the software house for future
development work, and retains ownership of the commissioned
work by the software house, for possible re-use in other projects,
and even development into a package for general sale. Again, the
commissioning company need to consider their needs in the
negotiations, and need to consider the future carefully. Larger
companies and public sector organisation, such as government
departments, where they commission software from a third party
will often, though not always, take the longer-term view and insist
on some form of access to the source code. This can take a
number of approaches, but can include transfer of ownership in
the software, shared rights, source code escrow and code audit

Transfer Of Ownership

A software house will typically demand higher payment for

software developed with a transfer of ownership compared to
software in which the company retains some or all of the rights. In
fact, it may not be possible to transfer all of the rights to the

Research On Open Innovation

commissioning organisation. The software house may have

developed a set of libraries for various purposes some of which
may already be used in previous projects, and the use of which for
future projects may be absolutely necessary for their continued
business. If the company has based some of their work on GPL or
LGPL-licensed159 precursors then they may not own the rights
themselves to transfer. If a software house has the right skills to
develop the software that the commissioning organisation needs,
then it is likely that a full transfer of rights would not be sensible
for the software house.
For the commissioning company, sole ownership is the
equivalent of developing the software in-house, without needing
to employ the software developers directly or on a long-term
basis. It provides the benefit that the software can be later further
developed in-house or by a third party, either for in-house use or
for sale as a product, a strategy already dismissed above.

Shared Ownership

Shared ownership is a shorthand for a number of different

ways of licensing the output of a piece of bespoke software. At
one extreme the commissioning and developing organisations
have equal but separate rights to the output of the project at the
end. Each is free to develop the code further on their own or with
other parties, and neither is constrained as to how these further
development may be commercialised or used. At the other
extreme, the commissioning company may have full access to the

The GNU Lesser General Public License which allows other programs to
call the relevant software as a separate library without the share-alike
element of the GPL coming into play for the core program, only for any
changes to the library.

Research On Open Innovation

source code and may use it and develop it for in-house use
themselves or bring in contractors to perform such development,
but may not sell the software to others nor pass on rights to third
parties. The most common variant of this kind of arrangement lies
in the middle, with pre-existing libraries etc from the software
house being licensed for use by the commissioning company,
perhaps including a time- or type-limited right of access to
updates (such as updates to new versions of the operating system).
The new software developed during the project is then subject to
the common ownership of the commissioning and developing
organisations as detailed above.

Source Code Escrow

Small software houses, like all small businesses, are in a

precarious position. Without any ill intent on behalf of the owners
and management of such companies, they frequently fold and
their records, including their source code base, may be deleted or
may end up in the hands of liquidators for whom their sole
purpose is the realisation of the maximum funds from those assets
in as short a time as possible. When one has commissioned
software from a company which then goes under, the possibility is
that both the original source code and/or the clear chain of
ownership and associated rights, is lost. To defend against the
negative impacts of this, but where the software house is
unwilling to agree to a transfer of rights or shared ownership, the
source code may be placed in escrow: that is, it may be lodged
with a trusted third party. A properly drawn up escrow agreement
provides the commissioning company with both access to the
source code and the equivalent rights of shared or transferred
ownership if and only if the software house ceases trading, or
possibly on violation of the contract. This ensures that the

Research On Open Innovation

commissioning organisation is not left with a set of running object

code but no way of fixing bugs or upgrading it. The trusted
escrow company ensures that the original software houses rights
are not voided until and unless they are out of business.
Alternatively a contract providing the code to the commissioner
but no rights to do anything, except possibly read it, can be

Code Audit Rights

The right to at least see the code of a commissioned piece of

software, or even one which is available off-the-shelf, may be a
requirement for certain types of business. Partly in response to
concerns about deliberate backdoors placed in the dominant MS
Windows operating system from various non-US governments,
and in reaction to other pressures such as continuous accusations
of monopoly leveraging from operating system to office software
and back (see also the section of this paper on data formats) MS
introduced the Shared Source Initiative which provides users of,
and developers for, some of MSs products access to (part of) the
source code of systems such as MS Windows and MS Office.
Similar code auditing arrangements can be built into bespoke
software development contracts, allowing representatives of the
commissioner, usually including contractors, the right to check
the source code for security holes, whether deliberate or

O p e n A n d C l o s e d D e ve l o p m e n t


Research On Open Innovation

The output of a software project and the tools used to develop

it have no technical requirement to share license structures. For
example, the use for a number of years of a proprietary tool
(BitKeeper) for controlling the source code of one of the most
high profile free/open source programs (the Linux Kernel, a vital
part of the GNU/Linux operating system) was very controversial.
A license move by BitMover (the company who produces
BitKeeper) in 2002 (Shaikh and Cornford, 2003) which tried to
restrict use of BitKeeper and prevent developers of interoperable
free software clients caused a significant disagreement amongst
Linux developers.:
this License is not available to You if Youdevelop,
produce, sell, and/or resell a product which contains
subantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software,
or, in the reasonable opinion of BitMover, competes with the
BitKeeper Software.
The controversy was somewhat lessened when BitMover
released their own free software (GPL v.2) client called bk-client
to connect to BitKeeper repositories, although with limited
capabilities. The controversy was re-ignited in 2005 when
BitKeeper withdrew their support due to the efforts of some
Linux developers to develop a full-featured client to connect to the
BitKeeper servers. As a result even Linus Torvalds finally shifted
his stance and engaged with other Linux developers to scratch
their own source control itch and produced the free software
system Git, a source control system designed for very large highly
active projects.

Software Idea Patents

In 1979 the spreadsheet, often claimed as the killer app that

ensured the success of the personal computer in ordinary office

Research On Open Innovation

environments, was invented by Bricklin and Frankston. They did

not attempt to file a patent, although they did consider it (a
common myth is that patenting was not seriously considered by
any programmers in the 70s). Bricklin describes their
consideration on his personal website
Why didnt we patent the spreadsheet? Were we upid?
This is a very common queion, since, by the late 1990s,
software inventions were routinely patented. Today, it seems
negligent to ignore patents. However, in 1979, when VisiCalc
was shown to the public for the fir time, patents for software
inventions were infrequently granted. The publishers of
VisiCalc retained a patent attorney who met with executives
from Software Arts and Personal Software. The patent
attorney explained to us the diculty of obtaining a patent on
software, and eimated a 10% chance of success, even using
various techniques for hiding the fact that it was really
software (such as proposing it as a machine). Given such
advice, and the cos involved, we decided not to pursue a
By 1981 the situation had changed and software patents were
being granted, although this growth of the patent system has been
far from universal, and both the concept and its implementation in
the US today remain controversial. The inclusion of software
purely as software (and not as part of a larger invention) in the
scope of the patent system outside the US has been one of the few
failures of the US commercial rules hegemony on so-called
intellectual property rights (Drahos and Braithwaite, 2002) over
the past thirty years. At present, despite various attempts by the


Research On Open Innovation

European Patent Office (EPO),160 various major international

firms who hold software patents in the US and would like to see
them introduced worldwide, and the US trade representatives
(Drahos and Braithwaite, 2002), so far the European Parliament
has resisted attempts to introduce software patents. It is a
perennial issue, however, and as of writing yet another discussion
of European patent reform is underway, with various groups
offering suggested wordings which they all claim will simply
clarify matters and reinforce the status quo. Of course if one
believes the allegations about the EPO then that status quo
includes the granting of patents on software in the EU.
Stallman, and other free software exponents (including those
on the open source side of the free/open source software
philosophy) are vehemently opposed to software idea patents. As
they point out, software is inherently abstract except where it
controls a physical entity. Restricting the use of software
concepts, it is claimed, undermines not only the whole ethos of
free software161 but would also undermine the rest of the software
industry, producing such ridiculous barriers to entry that few
others than todays software giants (MS, IBM, Oracle and Sun, all
of whom hold vast cross-licensed patent portfolios) could ever
afford to produce software. Critics of software idea patents also
point to the fact that innovation in software has been, and

It is alleged that as well as arguing on a policy-making level that software

should be patentable in the EU as it is in the US, that the EPO has deliberately
stretched the rules, or even broken them, in granting patents on software in an
attempt to by pass the democratic decision-making of both the EU and Member
States and effectively introduce software patents by grant rather than by statute.

which has a license which cannot prevent distribution free of charge, and
which therefore it would be difficult to find a way to provide the funding for
patent license fees, let alone actually track distribution to assess per-user fees,
the usual basis for a patent license

Research On Open Innovation

continues to be, incredibly healthy, even without the protection

supposedly offered by patents.

Communication Protocols

In defining communication protocols, there are a number of

issues where the question can be classified as open or closed.
These are: trust, interoperability and interface.

Tru In Communication Protocols

When the internet was first developed, certainty of delivery

over uncertain physical connections was the principle at work in
defining the protocols for communications. All computers
attached to the network were trusted not to be the source of
malicious communications. Thus when the protocols of the first
individual to individual communications tool (email) was defined
(RFC 821: SMTP [Simple Mail Transfer Protocol] in August
1982, Jon Postel) the system was designed to include the
minimum overhead of information exchanged to enable transfer of
the important content. As such, SMTP is a highly trusting and
open protocol. A receiving machine trusts the data provided by
the sending machine in terms of the origination of the data and by
agreeing to forward messages to other recipient machines. As the
internet expanded, this trusting approach could not be maintained
and many systems closed down their willingness to forward
messages to other recipients, unless the message comes from a
known source. The volume of spam long ago reached the point
that accepting mail from everywhere for forwarding is now not
only discouraged but such open mail proxies are now routinely
blocked from sending messages to most of the rest of the internet.

Research On Open Innovation

However, even now, reverse lookup of domain names

compared to internet addresses are deemed too expensive, and
more importantly too restrictive, the be implemented on many
mail receipt systems. Email is, in many ways, the victim of its
own success and constantly teetering on the brink of being
overwhelmed by malicious use. Being a relatively light overhead
(even now) communication protocol, and given the openness of its
implementation even now, a large number of emails are programto-person or even program-to-program communications. This
provides one of a number of barriers to a wholesale replacement
of the SMTP-based email system still in use today. The other
barriers to its replacements include:
The immense install base of email: every user online has at
least one email account and more usually more than that. Some
will run hundreds of accounts on different systems for different
The criticality of email in person-person machine-person
and machine-machine communications, and in particular the
lack of knowledge of many systems people of exactly which
protocols some of their software uses.
The desire of governments to censor and monitor their
citizens communications produces in some circumstances a
pressure from surveillance authorities to maintain a relativelysimple-to-eavesdrop-on service, while suggestions for authorityassigned trackable origination communication are resisted by
citizens wary of the hidden agenda of surveillance cloaked in
rhetoric about reducing malicious communications.
The suggestions by some major players in the software
industry to include proprietary formats, protocols and even
patented methods in revised standards.


Research On Open Innovation

Communication Protocols And


Communication is all about connecting people with each

other, preferably when both of them wish to be connected. In a
small network this can be handled by a variety of means, but the
numeric rules of networks mean that beyond a relatively small
size of network, scalability demands distribution of at least some
authority. In addition interoperability becomes a major issue in
any definition of a communication protocol. Take the example of
instant messaging (IM). The concept of direct synchronous
communication between users has been a feature of computer
communications for a long time, the specification for IRC
(internet Relay Chat: RFC 1459 May 1993 by Oikarinen and
Reed) provided an open protocol by which users could log on to a
server, select one or more channels of communication on that
server, and converse with each other with a minimum of typing
overhead. This open protocol served traditional internet user for
many years and became one of the main communication
alternatives, particularly for synchronous groups discussions,
along with email and usenet. However, for the non-expert
computer user AOL, Yahoo! and MS came to dominate this
communication space.
The walled garden online service of America OnLine (AOL)
introduced AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) in 1996. In 1997 they
released a client for non-AOL internet users, but still only for
AIM-registered users. In 1998 Yahoo! introduced their Yahoo!
Pager system, including the familiar buddy list feature. Again,
this system included a single log-on to the Yahoo! central server
and one could only talk to other Yahoo! users. In 1999, MS
released MSN Messenger as part of its MS Network (MSN)

Research On Open Innovation

online offering. The original MSN Messenger client allowed users

to interoperate with both AOL and Yahoo! IM systems, by
providing their account details to the Messenger server. AOL, in
particular, strongly criticised this practice (Hu and Junnarkar,
1999) citing security concerns but almost certainly more worried
about their market share and the advertising revenue generated by
the ad-supported standalone client as well as their own subscriber
base. As we discuss below, AOL have also attempted to block
other clients from connecting to their messaging server (claimed
to be in an attempt to secure the system, but in reality almost
certainly in defense of their revenue stream). After regular
alterations to the server and message protocol made keeping
changes up to date on the Messenger client impractical, MS
abandoned attempts to technologically force interoperability of
IM on AOL.
For many years after their launch, each of these systems stood
alone. Unlike email which, despite efforts by many companies to
appropriate it to their own private formats remains mainly open as
discussed above, these separate systems that came to dominate the
instant messaging were restricted to communication with other
users on the same system. Many users maintained accounts on
more than one, sometimes all three of these different systems. In
2006, MS and Yahoo! launched interoperability between their
services. AOL, having been approached to join them, still
maintains its standalone network.
Despite its open definition and multitude of servers and
clients, the Jabber protocol remains a small player in the IM field.
Newer services and systems such as Facebook and the iPhone
continue to challenge AOL, MS and Yahoo!s dominance, and
internal instant messaging within organisations exist, often based
on proprietary systems such as the venerable Lotus Notes internal
communication suite.

Research On Open Innovation

Data Formats

Closely linked to the issue of communication protocols are the

issue of data standards. Everything from SMS (text messages)
limited to 56 characters up to the entire contents of the internet
archive (formerly the wayback machine) which aims to preserve
the contents and changes of the internet for the future, is stored in
data formats of varying levels of abstraction and complexity. At
base, digital data is simply a collection of ones and zeroes. It is
the interpretation of that data that makes it meaningful and useful.
In the early days of digital electronic computing, even the
interpretation of the ordering of the ones and zeroes as a binary
number was a source of format incompatibility, the big-endian
versus little-endian approach. Even now, different computer
hardware runs on different endianness due to a variety of
historical and purpose-optimisation reasons beyond the scope of
this article. Digital information is valueless if its format is not
understood. This may be a deliberate part of a format, in fact, for
example formatting information stored in marked meta-data tags
may be ignored by devices or programs for whom that data is not
relevant. This allows the possibility of backwards compatibility,
an important element in data formats since for many applications
a universal simultaneous upgrade can not be expected.
Data formats can be classified into three main categories:
completely closed; published but proprietary-controlled; open
standards. Examples of each of these formats include:
Closed: The MS Office formats. Despite a badly flawed
process allowing the specification of MSs XML-wrapped
binary formats as a standard MSs Office formats,
including .doc[x], .xls[x] etc. remain closed proprietary formats.
Reverse engineering allows some interoperability of other
software, such as, but this is far from perfect

Research On Open Innovation

due to a lack of published specification for the meaning of some

of the data.
Published Proprietary: The original portable document
format (PDF) developed and maintained by Adobe Inc. The full
language specification was published by Adobe with the intent
that programs other than those produced by Adobe can interpret
and produce well-defined PDF files. Changes to the format were
controlled by Adobe. PDF was later submitted to and approved
by the ISO for formal standardisation.
Open Standards: Despite early tag proliferation in browsers
and web page editors, HTML (and related formats such as CSS,
XHTML etc.) is now a standard developed and published by the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The drafts are developed
by the W3Cs HTML Working Group.
As described above with regards to software licensing, choices
regarding data formats are often not given the attention they
deserve in companies. In particular, companies choosing the
software they will use to run their business often ignore the
question of the format of the data they will hold. That data is
crucial to their business, and a requirement to re-produce data
from scratch due to lack of current software to interpret older data
can be sufficient to devalue or even close a business. So, when
considering software and data formats, businesses need to look
both forward and backwards.

Data Formats For Software Houses

The meaning of a data format is open to anyone with access to

the source code of a program that can interpret that data. While
not the most efficient or simple of ways to provide access to a
specification, it does the job. So, if a software house produces free
software, or allows access to its source code under more or fewer

Research On Open Innovation

conditions, then the data format specification is discoverable by

those with that access.
If one is producing a proprietary program then one may still
produce data formats following a published description (whether
proprietary or open standard). Adobes Acrobat and MSs Internet
Explorer are both proprietary programs using published data
Some customers, particularly public sector customers, have as
part of their requirements that data produced by programs is
stored in a specified format (see below on good practice for
software users).
The reason for such requirements is the loss of data that has
already occurred in many organisations, particularly large public
organisations who invested early in the creation of large amounts
of data. When a software or hardware company went out of
business, unless the information technologists working for the
organisation were sufficiently on the ball, the capacity to use
existing software and hardware to produce data usable by the new
systems could easily be lost (Digital preservation Coalition,
It might seem an obvious benefit to allow a program to read in
as many external formats as possible, whether proprietary (ones
own or the reverse-engineered versions of others), published or
open standards. However, that brings ones own programs at least
partly into the interoperability region. While reading data format
X produced by program Y, a competitor to ones own offering Z,
might provide a relatively simple transition route from program Y,
it also allows for the possibility of companies maintaining
program Y as a main option and using a very small number of
licenses for Z where it capabilities are really needed.
Output formats are the trickier question, however. Vendor
lock-in using proprietary formats has been the model of

Research On Open Innovation

commercial software for almost three decades. The examples are

numerous, with reverse-engineering of the basic data format
battling against deliberate obfuscation of the meaning of the data
by the original firm. As mentioned above, however, there are other
options. In order to avoid losing control to a standards body,
which may move slower than user needs, and may be subject to
capture by ones opponents and used to prevent new capabilities
from reaching the market in time to secure a solid commercial
advantage, the Adobe option of publishing the data standard but
retaining control of it, seems very sensible. Of course, this may
still be captured by competitors branching the specification for
their own purposes (embrace, extend extinguish).
If one does not already have a lead in the marketplace, gaining
it can be very difficult (Brynjolfsson and Kemerer, 1996). In this
case, subscribing to standards bodies, gaining a seat at the table,
and competing on the merits of ones programmers and vision of
user needs, may be the better option. Certainly a revolt by users
who may see the proprietary data format as a stranglehold on their
own valuable data, and upgrade or maintenance costs that rise
over time as a sufficient reason to bite the bullet and change
platform (likely never to return) are a risk of the proprietary route.

Data Formats For Other Organisations

For organisations commissioning bespoke software/hardware

or buying off-the-shelf materials, the choice of data formats
which are in some sense open to them really should be the
obvious choice. A good range of options for both input and output
formats, and adherence to data format standards, are all good for
their business. For the public sector in particular, this issue has
been gaining some political traction for some time. The difficulty
comes, as always, in the interoperability stakes when other

Research On Open Innovation

organisations work with a closed standard. In the UK for example,

some government contract documents have in the past been issued
solely in MS Word format, and required the advanced scripting
facilities of Word to be completed. Not running a professional
edition of MS Word would bar an organisation from bidding for
government tenders. Direct online submission systems are tending
to move away from this desktop program model, but it can still
cause problems. Digital access and preservation strategies need
careful thought alongside interoperability questions, and the
possibility of loss of everything must be weighed against the
possible loss of richness in some data.

Community Or Cuomers

In these days of user generated content the phrase community

is often bandied around by those running websites where the
provider is solely an intermediary between users sharing their
material. There are many analyses of the economics and social
norms attaching to this idea (Surowiecki, 2004; Tapscott and
Williams, 2006; Constitution Committee of the House of Lords,
2008). Here we consider the attitude of organisations to their main
users. Those organisations can be etail (,
infor mation provision (,,, personal introductions between users
( social networking sites (, and many others. One of the things each of these sites
has in common is that part of what they provide is generated by
their users. In some cases, e.g. Wikipedia, it is all they provide. At
the other end of the scale the LA Times online site is principally
populated with the organisations own material with some
commentary and discussion amongst users. From Amazons
customer ratings and reviews to adultfriendfinders profiles to

Research On Open Innovation

Facebook and Mixis blogs, photos and friend lists, part of the
buzz about these sites is their community rather than their
customers. The software industry, combining their own and their
users technical expertise, were one of the first types of business to
see the advantage in helping their users to communicate with one
another. However, this can be a double-edged sword. Whereas
harnessing the Hacker Ethic (Himanen, 2001) of information
sharing provided free user support by creating a resource of
experienced users willing to share their knowledge with each
other (and, crucially, with new users) it also creates a perfect
opportunity for unhappy users to report their woes to other users
and potential users. Of course, these days most people have ample
other places to air their poor customer experiences, but few have
the fame of Eugene Volokh (Solove, 2007, p.93) and hence a blog
post by most will barely attract any significant attention, but if its
more than a few complaining bitterly on an official site, then the
organisation can have real problems. When posted to an
organisation-owned community site, such comments can, perhaps,
be removed, but the very act of creating a forum where users
provide most of the content is that they feel that they gain some, if
not all, of the expected free speech rights of public places
(Sunstein, 2002, Klein, 2000) and hard censorship on such sites
will tend to undermine their benefits in general while possibly
driving away existing customers more unhappy with the
censorship than because of the original failings.
Where the content of a site is created principally by the users,
and the organisation provides a structure in which to hold that
content, questions of ownership come into play. The rhetoric of
publishers has long been that copyright derives from the brilliant
acts of creation performed by the artist (writer, composer,
musician) and that the long, strong and wide protection is needed
to provide the deserving creator with the just benefits. of course,

Research On Open Innovation

the fact that the middlemen have been taking the lions share of
all the income is never mentioned. This case becomes even more
difficult when sites such as YouTube are considered. Created in
2005, YouTube quickly gathered a huge base of video clips from
users, free for other users to view. These clips included home
videos (everything from the funny antics of a cat to political
diatribes), film student shorts and extracts from commercial
material. Even in the early days the commercial content caused
some difficulties for the site operators, with complaints from
music recording companies, film companies and television
production companies. When Google acquired YouTube for in
2006 these companies redoubled their efforts to either shut
YouTube down, or at the very least acquire a share in its profits.
This raises an interesting question, however, of what Google
actually bought, and from whom. The terms and conditions of the
YouTube site are that uploaders provide an irrevocable license for
YouTube to do pretty much everything they want with the
material thus uploaded. In typical middleman style this included
selling the entire site to Google for $1.65b without ever paying
existing users a cent for their content. Under various pressures,
Google introduced a profit sharing plan in 2007 to enable
uploaders of very popular videos to receive some of the
advertising income that funds the service. It remains one of the
few user-generated content sites to have any form of plan no such
site to my knowledge has shared an IPO or massive sale proceeds
with their users.

The Anti-Malware Prisoners Dilemma

Anti-virus software has been around for a long time. Viri and
other forms of malware have been circulating since the early days
of the mini computer and the forerunner of the internet. Anti-virus

Research On Open Innovation

and related security software has become big business. Major

community efforts are also put into identifying both
vulnerabilities and threats. CERTs (computer emergency
readiness/response teams) exist in all the developed countries and
a number of others, with local teams also in existence. The threat
and risks are seen as so important that the main US-CERT is now
part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Like much else in the world of security, most people are not
very good at dealing with it. Many do not install any significant
protections until they have been badly damaged at least once, and
sometimes a number of times, by malware attacks. Given the
potential for indirect harm from many modern malware, where the
machine in question is merely hijacked (turned into a zombie) and
its network connection used for the sending of spam, participation
of distributed denial of service attacks or for use in cracking highvalue machines, this is an unfortunate position. It does mean,
however, that advertising and selling security software is difficult.
Competition in this marketplace is therefore quite fierce. This is
one area, however, where competition probably does not produce
the optimum outcome. The reason for this is that there are two
major parts to anti-malware programs. The first is an overseer
program that monitors what is going on in the operating system
and looks for other pieces of software whose actions are out of the
ordinary (accessing many different types of file, adding the same
code to each, for example). The second is a set of recognition
signatures for identified malware and unpatched vulnerabilities in
programs. If a piece of malware appears on the computer via any
route the easiest, quickest and most effective way for the antimalware program to identify it is with a software signature: some
element(s) of the virus code identified as unchanging between
minor variations.

Research On Open Innovation

In an ideal world these virus signatures would be freely shared

between anti-malware companies and given away free to users.
However, identification of these signatures is a time-consuming
job and while some of this is done by volunteers or CERT team
members, much of it is done by paid employees of the antimalware company. While free sharing of the signature files would
probably make all computers safer from infection, such sharing
would also, particularly if not reciprocated, reduce the
competitiveness of a companys software in the security
marketplace. If Company A shares its identified signatures with
everyone else, then the software from all companies will detect
the viri that Company As software does, plus the ones they have
separately identified but not shared. In addition, it is likely that
churn162 in the marketplace is at least partly driven by failure of
the existing software to prevent infection. So, sharing virus
signatures can reduce churn, and thus reduce the ability of
companies offering better programs to gain customers during the
churn. So, instead of cooperating, the anti-malware companies
defect and everyone loses out.


When software is produced by public or non-profit

organisations, the mode of operation should almost certainly be
some form of free software license. Not only does this allow their
programmers free reign to build on existing free software and not
re-invent the wheel, but by explicitly collaborating with other
public/non-profit organisations with similar problems to solve, a
cooperative effort can yield quicker and sturdier results than a
solo effort in each organisation. The (ideally) lack of any form of

That is, customers shifting from one product to another.


Research On Open Innovation

competition among public and non-profit organisations generally

removes any doubts that internal developments should be released
in this way.
Similarly to public and non-profit organisations, commercial
organisations should consider building on existing free software
projects, either forking them to develop into serving their own
needs or contributing to the general development of a particular
project. Few pieces of software developed for in-house use are
ever successfully commercialised and building internal tools on
free software can prevent managers from following this dangerous
As has been shown by a number off companies, some of them
major players (IBM, RedHat, Sun) developing free software can
provide valuable income. Instead of competing with other
companies for a locked-in client base paying for regular upgrades,
maintenance and support of a proprietary program, competing for
business offering a specific service can lead to a healthier longterm business. Certainly the ethical values of the ACM and BCS
where the customer, society, the developers and the business are
all seen as stakeholders in the information infrastructure, free
software is much more compatible with these values. The use of
free software as a companys offering encourages it to regard its
highly skilled development staff as its most valuable resource, and
not as a cost base whose benefits and salaries should be kept
down at all costs. Treating ones knowledge workers as the core of
the business fits well with the shift to the knowledge economy
described by so many including Castells (1996, 1997, 2000).
Regarding ones knowledge workers as less important than the
managers and sales staff is the stuff of Dilberts world and can
often be the downfall of a company, in the long if not the short

Research On Open Innovation

The arguments against patents generally have been made

many times for both philosophical (Jefferson, 1907, pp.326338,
Vol. XIII, Letter to Isaac McPherson) and practical (Drahos and
Braithwaite, 2002) reasons. The particular case against
restrictions on software are compelling:
Without software patenting, the software industry in Europe
has not imploded nor suffered from a lack of investment.
The level of innovation in software is very high and as
patents are supposed to promote innovation by rewarding it.
Since the innovation exists patents are unnecessary.
Few software patents issued in the US have ever been
successfully defended against charges of lack of novelty,
obviousness (to a relevant practitioner), or published prior art.
If the idea of the spreadsheet had been patented in 1979, the
base idea would only have dropped out of patenting in 1999.
The world of computing in 1999 and that of 1979 were so
radically different it is hard to see this as a sensible term.
The return on investment period for software is so variable,
depending on too many factors, for a sensible term to be valid
across software.
Software is so abstract, malleable and variable that the only
beneficiaries in the long run are likely to be lawyers.
Even for large software concerns, the risks in developing
any new code would be substantial whereas the rewards are
Publishing the details of communication protocols usually
benefits the developers of the original system using the protocol
because the network multiplication factor outweighs the
detriments of increased competition. Sometimes a first mover can
gain and maintain a closed protocol system, but they run the risk
of losing their market share very quickly (e.g. the closed protocols
of Friendster, one of the early mass appeal social networking sites

Research On Open Innovation

lost out to the similarly closed protocols of Facebook, although

the closed protocol of AIM still puts AOL at the top of the IM
market). Protocols themselves should not be too open or trusting
of information coming in. The early days of trusting everyone on
the network are long gone and there is too much pollution in the
information stream for open, trusting protocols.
Where feasible, the users of software (whether that be off-theshelf or bespoke) always benefit from known formats. The
differences between published but owned formats and true
standards are complicated and often depend on the particular type
of document, its purposes and user base. Proprietary formats, like
closed protocols, can produce customer lock-in and dominant
market share, but reverse-engineering is likely to cause an arms
race and some large customers such as governments may well
have the power to demand, or even force, the opening of a format
Members of a community are more likely to be forgiving of
failings than pure customers, and to have some sort of emotional
investment in the software or service they are using. However,
members of a community also have greater expectations of
responsiveness and other elements of human rights come in to
play. The ACM and BCS code of ethics, with their stress on
balancing stakeholder interests including those of customers
should push computing professionals down the road of
community-building. Provided you treat your customers well and
dont set out to exploit them. the benefits can far outweigh the
downsides, particularly in user to user support.

The Cos And Benets Of Openness

Being open has its risks, particularly for things like

communication protocols, where trusting protocols are now

Research On Open Innovation

almost always abused. By adopting an open approach in general,

businesses can develop a more balanced approach to their
activities, being paid for what they do and will do, rather than
trying to be paid for what they have already done. Higher risks
may bring higher rewards in the long run, but they also may not.
If long term value is your goal, a more open approach can
produce a more efficient economy, which can have broad benefits.
In particular, the use of free software licenses, open formats and
building communities should help us to develop a more robust
software infrastructure. Competition based on continuing ability
to meet user needs is healthier than one based on long-term lockin, see-saw (teeter-totter) economics (Hunt, 2000) and customer
exploitation. Arguments about universal interoperability are often
used by companies such as Microsoft to explain their effectivemonopoly position as good for the consumer. Open formats, clear
distinctions between infrastructure, utility and productivity
applications and competition in the marketplace reduce barriers to
entry, and force companies to maintain the quality of their
offerings far more than a captive market. Excess profits in the
software industry syphon money from elsewhere in the economy
and claims that this is healthy are an example of the Broken
Window Fallacy (Bastiat, 1850). Monopolies can also be brittle in
a number of ways, including security risks associated with
monocultures (if almost everyone runs a particular piece of
software then any vulnerability in that software makes it more
attractive to attackers and more devastating when an attack
occurs), and the problem of one monopoly replacing another,
whereby the previous monopolist may swiftly find themselves


Research On Open Innovation


1. Bastiat, F. (1850). What is Seen and What is Not Seen. In

(Bastiat, 1964). Original essay published in 1850; available

2. Bastiat, F. (1964). Selected Essays on Political Economy.

Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.

3. Brynjolfsson, E. and Kemerer, C. F. (1996). network

externalities in microcomputer software: An econometric
analysis of the spreadsheet market. Management Science,

4. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society.

Number 1 in The Information Age. Blackwell, Chichester.

5. Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Number 2 in

The Information Age. Blackwell, Chichester.

6. Castells, M. (2000). End of Millennium. Number 3 in The

Information Age. Blackwell, Chichester.

7. Chandler, J. A. (2008). Contracting insecurity: Software

license terms that undermine cybersecurity. In [Matwyshyn,
2008], pages 159201.

8. Constitution Committee of the House of Lords (2008).

Second Report; Surveillance; Citizens and the State.

Research On Open Innovation

9. Digital Preservation Coalition. Handbook of preservation

management of digital materials.

10. Drahos, P. and Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information

Feudalism. Earthscan.

11. Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, S., and Lakhani, K.,
editors (2003). Taking Stock of the Bazaar: Proceedings of the
3rd Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering.
Available online as

12. Gates III, W. H. (1976). An open letter to hobbyists.

13. Himanen, P. (2001). The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the
Information Age. Vintage, New York, NY. Prologue by Linus
Torvalds, epilogue by Manuel Castells.

14. Hu, J. and Junnarkar, S. (1999). AOL blocks Microsoft

Net messaging. CNet News.

15. Hunt, S. (2000). A general theory of competition:

Resources, competences, productivity, economic growth.
Sage, Thousan Oaks, CA.

16. Jefferson, T. (1907). Writings of Thomas Jefferson. The

Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association.

17. Klien, N. (2000). No Logo. Picador, New York, NY.


Research On Open Innovation

18. Levy, S. (2001). Hackers: Heroes of the Computer

Revolution. Penguin, London.

19. Loren, L. P. (2004). Slaying the Leather-Winged Demons

in the Night: Reforming Copyright Owner Contracting with
Clickwrap Misuse. Ohio Northern University law Review,

20. Matwyshyn, A., editor (2008). Harboring Data:

Information Security, Law, and the Corporation. Stanford Law
Books, Stanford, CA.

21. May, C. (2003). Digital rights management and the

breakdown of social norms. First Monday, 8(11).

22. Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

OReilly. Available online.

23. Shaikh, M. and Cornford, T. (2003). Version Management

Tools: CVS to BK in the Linux Kernel. In Feller et al., 2003,
pages 127132. Available online as

24. Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. Allen Lane,


25. Solove, D. J. (2007). The Future of Reputation. Yale

University Press, New Haven, CT.

26. Stefik, M. (1997). Shifting the possible: How trusted

systems and digital property rights challenge use to rethink

Research On Open Innovation

digital publishing. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 12(1):


27. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Princeton

University Press, Princeton, NJ. Second edition also available: 2.0, 2007.

28. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds.

Doubleday, New York, NY.

29. Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics.

Portfolio, New York, NY.

30. Williams, S. (2002). Free as in Freedom; Richard

Stallmans Crusade for Free Software. OReilly, Sebastapol,



Research On Open Innovation


Andrew Adams is Deputy Director of the Centre for Business

Information Ethics and Professor at the Graduate School of
Business Adminiration, Mei University. His research interes
are in the social impact of computer and communication
technology and related legislation and regulation. He has a PhD
in Computer Science from the University of St Andrews and an
LLM (Maers) in Law from the University of Reading. He is a
founding member of the UK's Open Rights Group. He co-authored
Pandora's Box: Social and Professional Issues of the Information
Age, available from Wiley. He has published papers on issues of
copyright, privacy, ubiquitous computing in healthcare and other


Research On Open Innovation


Blurring the Line between

Creator and Consumer
By Andrew Katz

We are reaching the end of a great historical experiment.

Printing (starting with Gutenberg-style presses, and leading to
huge industrial Heidelberg printing machines), radio
broadcasting, records (shellac 78s and vinyl), CDs, cinema,
television, DVDs and Blu-Rays were the technological backdrop
for this experiment. All are (or were) media based on the principle
of one-to-many distribution. To understand how this experiment
was initiated, and how it is reaching its end, we need to
understand a little of the nature of the businesses involved in these
activities, and how the law enabled them to attain, and retain, that
The one-to-many broadcast distribution model distorted our
perception of creativity. A key characteristic of one-to-many
distribution is the role of the gatekeeper: the corporation which
decides what we, the public, get to read, hear, watch or listen to.
The roles of creator and consumer are starkly defined and
contrasted. The public becomes used to the idea of passive
consumption, and creativity, in those areas covered by copyright
becomes increasingly marginalised: perceived as capable of
flourishing only through the patronage of the movie studios, the
record companies or the TV stations.
The industrial technology behind printing, broadcasting and
vinyl duplication is expensive. Copyright law grants a monopoly
which enables the distributors of content to invest in the capital
infrastructure required for its packaging and distribution. These
are the businesses which grew fat on the monopolies so granted,

Research On Open Innovation

and they succeeded in convincing the public that it was the

corporations role to provide, and the publics role to pay and
The original social approach to creativity did not become
extinct as the dominant producer/consumer mode become
established, even for media (like music, for example) where it
applied. Andrew Douglass excellent film Searching for the
Wrong-Eyed Jesus shows that a visitor to the late 20th century
Appalachians of the American South, may well be asked What
instrument do you play?. If the visitor answers I dont, the
questioner will go on to say Ok, so you must sing.
Steven Johnson, in Where Good Ideas Come From makes the
convincing case, based on a mass of evidence, that this social
mode is more effective at maximising creativity that relying on
lone inventors and creators sitting in their garrets and sheds. Lone
creators make a good central figure in a compelling narrative
(which is one reason why this meme is so popular). However,
examining the truth behind the narrative often reveals that any
creative work has much broader parentage than the story suggests.
James Boyle in The Public Domain reveals the story behind the
Ray Charles song I Got a Woman, tracing it backwards to Gospel
roots, and forwards to the YouTube mashup George Bush Doesnt
Care About Black People, which sprung to prominence in the
aftermath of hurricane Katrina. To be sure, companies sometimes
tried to foster a social model within the organisation, but as
Johnson points out, the benefits of social creation increase very
dramatically with the size of the pool of participants, due to
network effects (Metcalfes law the number of connections
increases with the square of the number of participants): until
company silos are able to combine, the beneficial effects are
relatively small.

Research On Open Innovation

The internet proved hugely disruptive. The sharing and social

nature of Web 2.0 has enabled the rediscovery of the natural,
human, social mode of creative endeavour. The social side of the
internet is dominated by individuals acting in their private
capacity, outside the scope of businesses. Businesses, initially
wary of losing control over the activities of their staff, and which
regarded internet social activities as, at best, time wasting, and, at
worst, providing the potential to leak the companys valuable
intellectual property, were often slow to see the benefits of social
interaction in terms of benefits to their creativity. However, as
they have seen the benefits accrue to their competitors, they are
starting to embrace a more open mode of business.
A return to the social mode is not without setbacks. The
internet radically lowered the barrier to entry for collaborative
participation, and consequently increased the number of potential
contacts that an entrant can make. This immensely powerful
engine of creativity is also subject to a brake: the effect of unfitfor-purpose copyright laws.
The copyright laws of the broadcast era do more to assist the
incumbent gatekeepers (the film companies, music companies and
so-on) than to promote the social mode of collaboration. A sideeffect of the digital world is that almost every form of digital
interaction involves copying of some sort. Whereas copyright law
has nothing to say about sharing a book with a friend by lending it
to her, in the digital realm, lending her a digital copy of Nineteen
Eighty-Four to read on her e-book reader or computer involves
and of copying which can potentially violate copyright law.
The broadcast-model gatekeepers have relied on this
unintended side-effect of copyright law to their advantage, taking
action against private individuals who had no intention of
monetary gain, including mash-up artists, home video enthusiasts
and slash fiction authors.

Research On Open Innovation

Incumbent rights-holders, fearful of losing their profitable

monopoly-based businesses, have sought to extend their rights
ever further, by (frequently successfully lobbying) governments to
legislate for new and increased intellectual property rights, far
beyond their original purpose and intention.
To put the issue in context, it is necessary to ask the
fundamental question: What is copyright for?
Thomas Jefferson was one of the most lucid writers on the
topic. He understood well the unique nature of knowledge:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all
others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking
power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively
possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is
divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and
the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar
character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every
other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from
me, receives inruction himself without lessening mine; as he
who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over
the globe, for the moral and mutual inruction of man, and
improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly
and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them,
like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their
density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe,
move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement
or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature,
be a subject of property.
But Jefferson conceded that creative people should be given a
limited right of exclusive control over their creations. Even though
a monopoly is inherently a bad thing (as was recognised in the
late 18th century just as it is today), nonetheless, a monopoly of
control, in the form of copyright or a patent, was the most

Research On Open Innovation

convenient way of enabling the creators to be remunerated for

their work. And once the monopoly expired the, idea would be
freely available for all and become part of the common heritage of
mankind, to be used without restriction by anyone. The necessary
(but limited) monopoly includes copyright, and the principle
that the restrictions should be the minimum possible to achieve
that aim should be copyright's golden rule.
The golden rule has been repeatedly ignored. The scope of
protection has steadily increased over the last three hundred years,
to the extent that, in Europe, the protection granted to the author
of a novel, for example, lasts for seventy years after his or her
What isn't restricted by intellectual property is called the
public domain.
Commentators have become increasingly strident that the
public domain is a public good (an idea with which Jefferson
would have agreed). In the same way that a common land is open
to all to graze their animals, the public domain has been described
as a commons of knowledge, where potentially anyone can graze
on the intellectual creations of others. The public domain has one
crucial difference from a commons in the tangible world: a
meadow open to all can easily be over-grazed and ruined, so that
it becomes of use to no one (the so-called tragedy of the
commons). It is impossible to exhaust the commons of
knowledge and ideas.
The modern tragedy of the commons is that, just as the
internet makes it easier to pass ideas and knowledge from one
person to another (for the moral and mutual instruction of man,
and improvement of his condition) it seems that legislation and
the more extreme activities of the rights holders are making it
more difficult for those ideas and knowledge to enter the
commons in the first place. This is because the term of

Research On Open Innovation

intellectual property is forever extending (will the early Mickey

Mouse films ever enter the public domain?), and so is its scope
(for example, the patenting of genes or plants).
Increasingly, people are becoming aware of the value of the
commons, and are seeking to protect it. At the same time, we are
becoming aware that the monopoly granted by intellectual
property laws is a blunt instrument, and that people are prepared
to create for reasons other than the expectation of payment for the
use of their creation.
Copyright law does not always have to work against the
In the late 1980s, Richard Stallman, a computer programmer,
realised that copyright law could be turned inside out to create a
commons of computer software. The method he proposed was
simple, but brilliant:
Software is protected by copyright. The existing software
business model involved granting customers permission (the
licence) to use a specific piece of software. This licence was
conditional on the customer not only paying the software
publisher fee, but also adhering to a number of other restrictions
(such as only using the software on one computer, for example).
Why not, Stallman reasoned, make it a condition of the licence,
that if you took his software and passed it on (which he was happy
for people to do), then they had to pass it on, together with any
changes they made, under the same licence? He called this sort of
software free software: once a piece of software has been
released under this sort of licence, it can be passed on freely to
other people, with only one restriction: that if they pass it on, in
turn, they must also ensure the people they pass it on in a way that
guarantees and honours that freedom.


Research On Open Innovation

In time, he reasoned, more and more software would be

released under this licence, and a commons of freely available
software would flourish.
In the two decades since the most widely used version of the
licence (called the GNU General Public License version 2
called the GPL) was issued it has become the most commonly
used software licence. It is the licence at the core of Linux, the
computer operating system which powers Google. Amazon,
Facebook and which enabled Red Hat to generate revenue in
excess of $1.5Bn in financial year 2013-14.

The GPL software commons not only exists: by any measure it

is an overwhelming success, whether it is in terms of number of
participants creating software for it; whether it is the number of
items of GPL software in use; whether it is in the environments in
which GPL software can be found (from running over 90% of the
worlds 100 most powerful computers, to mobile phones and in-car
entertainment systems); whether it is at the core of the business
offerings of businesses like IBM and Red Hat.
The success of free software is not just down to the GPL. The
GPL extracts a price for using the commons. To analogise
possibly too far, a landowner adjoining the GPL commons who
wants to use it also has to add his own land to the commons
(although, remember that this is the magical land of ideas which
cannot be ruined by over-grazing). This will have the effect of
increasing the size of the commons as more and more adjoining
landowners want to make use of the commons and donate their
own land in the process. But many of them may not want to join
this scheme: either because they don't want to add their own land
to the commons, or because they have already pledged their land
to another commons.

Research On Open Innovation

Is it possible to generate a commons of ideas without forcing

participants to pay the price of entry: that they add their own
adjoining land to the commons? Is the compulsion of the GPL
necessary, or is the social and community dynamic powerful
enough to allow a similar commons of ideas to spring up on its
The software industry has given us several outstanding
examples of this. Apache, the most popular web server software in
the world (and used by many of the busiest web sites) is issued
under a licence which doesn't ask users to pay the GPL price.
Anyone can take the Apache code, and modify it and combine it
with their other software, and release it without having to release
any sources to anyone else. In contrast to the GPL, there is no
compulsion to add your software to the Apache commons if you
build on Apache software and distribute your developments, but
many people choose to contribute back without this compulsion.
FreeBSD, to take another example, is an operating system with
similarities to GNU/Linux which is licensed under a very liberal
licence allowing its use, amendment and distribution without the
requirement to contribute improvements back: nonetheless, many
people choose to do so.
The GPL tackles an issue called the free rider problem.
Because BSD does not compel people to contribute back to the
commons, those who take advantage without contributing back
are called free riders. The question is whether free riders really
are a problem (as the GPL band would maintain), or they are (as
the BSD band would maintain) at worst a cost-free irritant, or at
best, a cadre of people who will eventually see the light and start
to contribute, once they recognise the benefits.
Supporters of both the GPL and BSD models of licensing
have similar aims: the production of a software commons which
will enable the social mode of creativity to flourish.

Research On Open Innovation

While the BSD model could subsist in the absence of

copyright, GPL relies (perhaps ironically) on copyright law to
enforce its compulsion to share. It still remains an open question
as to whether the better model is to use licensing to compel
people to participate in the software commons, and reduce the
free rider problem (as with GPL), or whether voluntary
engagement will result in a more active community (as with
Apache). As we will see below, designers working outside the
digital domain will rarely have the ability to choose a GPL-style
The undoubted success of free and open source software
(Gartner confidently states that all businesses today use at least
some free software in their systems. The Linux Foundation
estimated that free software underpinned a $50 billion economy in
2011) means that this model has been considered for its
applicability in other contexts. Can designers in other fields
benefit from this model?
One of the most prominent of these has been the Creative
Commons movement. Founded in 2001, Creative Commons has
written a suite of licences which were inspired by the GNU GPL,
but which are intended for use in relation to a broad range of
media, including music, literature, images and movies. The
licences are drafted to be simple to understand and are modular, in
that the rights owner can choose from a selection of options. The
attribution option requires that anyone making use of the work
makes fair attribution to the author; the share alike option is akin
to the GPL, in that if a licensee takes the work and redistributes it
(whether amended or not), then the redistribution needs to be on
the same form of licence; the no derivatives option means that
work may be passed on freely, but not modified, and the non
commercial option means that the work can only be used and
distributed in a non-commercial context.

Research On Open Innovation

There are now millions of different works available under on

of the various creative commons licences: Flickr is just one search
engine which has enabled Creative Commons licensing as a
search option. There are, at the time of writing (2014), over
300,000,000 Creative Commons licensed images available for use
on Flickr alone (up from just under 200,000,000 in 2010, when
the first version of this article was written). Similar sites provide
music and literary works under a Creative Commons licence.

The Creative Commons provides designers and other creatives

operating within the digital domain the legal infrastructure to
adopt this model. There is also an effective choice as to whether
an appropriate model is GPL-style share-alike, or BSD style.
Where designers work moves into the physical world, all is not so
The movement of hardware design into the commons has been
difficult. The issues are fundamentally:
1. In the digital world, the creator has the choice of whether a
GPL- or BSD- model is appropriate. This choice does not
translate well to the analogue world.
2. Digital works are relatively easy to create and test on lowcost equipment. Analogue works are more difficult to create, test
and copy, and this creates barrier-to-entry problems.
3. Digital goods are easy to transport. Analogue ones
frequently arent. This creates a barrier to the communication
necessary to get the most benefit out of network effects.

The barrier to entry for any participant in a digital project is

remarkably low. A low-cost computer and basic internet access
are all that is required to have a system capable of running the
(free) GNU/Linux operating system and accessing project hosting
sites like (which is free of charge to public projects).

Research On Open Innovation

A vast range of tools required to develop software (such as GCC

the GNU Compiler Collection) is also available as free software.
Copying purely digital works is trivially easy. Physical objects are
a different matter.
Hardware development is likely to require more intensive
investment in equipment (including premises), not just for
development, but for testing. Electronic digital hardware is
probably closest to software in terms of low barrier to entry: for
example, the open-source Arduino micro-controller project
enables an experimenter to get started with as little as $30 for a
basic USB controller board (or less, if the experimenter is
prepared to build the board). Arduinos schematics, board layouts
and prototyping software are all open source. However, Arduinolike projects represent the lowest barrier to entry in the hardware
The Arduino-style project is essentially a hybrid of the
analogue and the digital domains. Prototyping software makes it
possible to develop Arduino-based hardware in the digital
domain, where it retains all the characteristics of the digital world:
ease of copying, the ability to upload prototypes to fellowcontributors for commentary, assistance and showing off. These
are characteristics which enable network effects, and which make
the open source model so powerful. It is only when the project is
implemented as a physical circuit board that these characteristics
are lost.
The analogue world is not always so simple. One of the most
ambitious open source projects is the 40 Fires/Riversimple
hydrogen car project, which has developed a small urban car (the
Hyrban) powered by hydrogen, using a fuel cell/electric
drivetrain. Elements of the design (for example power control
software, or the dashboard user interface) can be developed
largely in the digital domain, but the development of motors,

Research On Open Innovation

brakes, the body shell and so-on are strictly analogue only, and
not only present a large barrier-to-entry for interested tinkerers,
but also tend to restrict the ability to participate in the
development community: a necessity if network effects are to
work. It is, clearly, difficult to upload a car to a development site
and say can you tell me why the windscreen leaks?.
Another significant issue is the lack of design software at a
low cost. Software developers have access to high quality tools
like development environments and tools available for free under
free software licences. There is no similar suite of CAD software,
and proprietary CAD software is notoriously expensive. The
barrier to entry is raised once again.
Many of these issues are surmountable, in time. Everimproving simulation software means that more and more testing
and prototyping can be undertaken in the digital domain. The
introduction of 3-d printers, such as the RepRap, means that
printing physical objects, such as gears, for example, out a variety
of plastics, is becoming increasingly affordable and feasible. The
lack of suitable CAD software is being addressed by a number of
For designers, progress in open source tools, increased
connectivity and so-on makes the establishment of open-source
communities ever more feasible. The legal issues are, however,
not so straightforward.
So far, we have concentrated on copyright issues. Other forms
of intellectual property pose, in some ways, greater challenges.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea. Retaining the same
idea, but recasting the expression of it in a different form does not
infringe the copyright. The story of two people from warring
tribes meeting, falling and love, and dying in tragic circumstances
can be told in a myriad different ways, each with their own
independent copyright, and without infringing anyone else's

Research On Open Innovation

copyright. This has two practical consequences. The first is that if

a creator creates something which he or she has not copied from
something else, then the creator will not be in breach of copyright,
even if their creation turns out to be very similar, or even
identical, to someone elses. The second is that if a component of
something is found to be infringing copyright, it is possible to
rewrite it by recasting the same idea in a different expression.
Copyright also has the advantage of being (reasonably well)
harmonised worldwide, and has also proved amenable to hacking
(by Richard Stallman) so that it can be used to guarantee freedom
in the code it covers.
There are other forms of intellectual property protection, and,
for designers, these are more problematic.
This issue is linked to the distinction between the analogue
and digital domains. Designs will almost invariably start with
some sort of drawing or description. This will be protected as a
literary or artistic work by copyright. Often, this material will be
digital in nature. At this point, its similar to software. Licensing
options include the suite of Creative Commons licences. Once an
item is created in the physical world, a different set of legal
considerations applies.
The most obvious is design right. Unfortunately, design right
is complex and uncoordinated. There are many different types of
design right. In the UK, for example, there are four separate
design right regimes operating simultaneously, covering
(depending on the right in question) aspects such as shape,
texture, colour, materials used, contours and ornamentation.
Registered designs are in many ways similar to patents (and are
sometimes called petty patents or design patents). Infringement
can be unintentional, and independent creation is irrelevant.
Unregistered designs are more in the nature of copyrights, and are
capable of infringement only where copying has taken place. The

Research On Open Innovation

very fact that registration is required (in the case of registered

design rights, clearly), itself provides a barrier to entry for
collaborative projects: whereas copyright arises automatically and
without the necessity of registration, who will pay for the
preparation of a design registration, and who will make the
application and maintain it?
Patents provide a particular problem for both programmers
and designers, as they can impinge on both the digital realm and
the analogue realm. Patents are a protection on the idea itself.
However that idea is expressed, the patent will be infringed.
Independent invention does not excuse patent infringement. The
only way to be sure that an invention does not infringe a patent is
to do an exhaustive check in patent offices worldwide: something
that is very rarely done (the expense is enormous and creates a
vast barrier to entry for small businesses, and US law in particular
applies a positive disincentive to search: if a search is undertaken,
then the searcher can be deemed to have knowingly infringed a
patent even if their reasonable determination was that the patent
was not infringed and will be liable to triple damages as a
Pressure groups are lobbying worldwide for a reform of the
patent system and process, but at present it is clear that the system
benefits incumbent large companies with an existing patent
The upshot of the intellectual property issues is that whereas
those operating wholly in the digital domain (which includes
programmers, but which can also extend to digital creatives such
as filmmakers, novelists or graphic designers) have the ability to
choose whether they prefer the GPL model to the BSD model, for
a number of reasons, the BSD model is often a more viable option
in the hardware, analogue world. The main reasons are, briefly,
that (1) copyright, being largely universal, automatic, unregistered

Research On Open Innovation

and long-lasting, is better suited to the development of a copyleft

model that other forms of intellectual property; and (2) that the
difference in cost between copying something and reverse
engineering (which is vast in digital world, but much smaller in
the analogue world), makes the copyleft a less compelling point).
These reasons probably need some explanation.
For a GPL-model to apply to hardware designs, to be
effective, it would need to impinge on the ideas underlying the
design (meaning patents), or on the visual characteristics of the
design (meaning design rights). A GPL-style model based on
patents would likely fail (at least when any of the participants are
not large corporations) because of the cost, complexity, and time
involved in applying for the patents (and the necessity to keep the
invention secret prior to its publication as part of the application
process squares badly with the open source ethos). If the model
were based on design rights, this would fail in relation to
registered design rights, for the same reasons as for patents, and
for unregistered design rights would be unlikely to work because
the scope and length of protection would be too short, and
because the rights are insufficiently universal (although there is
some scope for a limited GPL-style model in relation to
unregistered design rights).
There is also an economic argument why a GPL model may
cause problems in the field of hardware. The reasoning is as
follows: the digital world makes things extremely easy to copy.
Imagine a programmer wants to create some software based on a
program with similar functionality to a word processor, for
example, released under the GPL. The options are (1) take the
original GPL program, modify it, and release the result under the
GPL; or (2) take the GPL program, reverse engineer it, and
rewrite a whole new program from scratch, which will be
unencumbered by copyright restrictions. The difference in the

Research On Open Innovation

amount of work involved in the two scenarios is vast, and any

programmer is likely to consider very seriously adopting the
easier, cheaper and quicker option (1), where the cost is outlicensing under the GPL. However, even if there were a
functioning mechanism for applying share-alike to, for example, a
mechanical assembly, in this case, an engineer wishing to
reproduce the mechanical assembly would, in effect, have to
reverse engineer it, in order set up the equipment needed to
reproduce it. Copying a digital artefact is as simple as typing:


Copying an analogue artefact is vastly more difficult, and

therefore there is little difference between slavish copying (which
would invoke GPL-like restrictions), or reverse-engineering and
re-manufacturing (which wouldnt). In this case, its much more
likely that the cost of GPL-like compliance would be greater
than the benefits of having a GPL-free object.
So even if GPL-like licences are legally effective in the
physical world, economics would tend to disfavour their use.
Designers, therefore, operating in the analogue realm may
choose an openness model more akin to BSD that to GPL. Their
challenge is to make this model work, and discourage free riders
with a combination of moral pressure and a demonstration that
playing by the community norms will be beneficial both to them,
and to the community as a whole.
Designers and creators are increasingly able to benefit from
the promise of the connected, social mode of creativity. The way
was paved by free software pioneers, who skilfully hacked the
copyright system to generate a commons which has not only,
generated a huge global business, but also provided the software
which runs devices from mobile phones through to the most

Research On Open Innovation

powerful supercomputers. It provides the software which gives the

developing world access to education, medical information, micro
finance loans and enables them to participate in the knowledge
economy on similar terms to the developed nations.
The challenge for designers and creators in other fields is to
adapt the model of software development to their own field of
work, and to counter the extensive efforts of incumbent
beneficiaries of the broadcast era to use ever more draconian
legislation to prop up the outmoded business models. Ultimately,
the social mode will win: it takes one of humanity's defining
characteristics, the fact that as animals we are highly social and
community oriented, and uses it as the foundation of the entire
structure. One-to-many works against this fundamental trait.
Nature will ultimately triumph.

Open Design: Denition

An open design is:

0. The freedom to use the design, including making items

based on it, for any purpose (freedom 0).
1. The freedom to study how the design works, and change it
to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the
underlying design documents is a precondition for this.
2. The freedom to redistribute copies of the design so you
can help your neighbour (freedom 2).
3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
of the design to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the
whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access
to the underlying design documents is a precondition for this.


Research On Open Innovation

(A version of the Free Software Foundations four freedoms

repurposed for designs by OHANDA the Open Source
Hardware and Design Alliance).

Rights And Licensing Schemes

The re-use of designs is governed mainly by copyright, design

rights and patents. Traditional open licensing schemes have been
based on copyright, as this is the main intellectual property right
which impinges on software, the most fertile ground for openness.
Software licensing schemes include the GPL (which enforces
copyleft) and BSD (which doesnt). A more comprehensive list of
licences can be found at


Software licences rarely work properly when applied to other

works. For literary, graphic and musical works, the creative
commons suite is more effective:
They allow both copyleft (share alike) and non-copyleft options.
They may work well when applied to underlying design
documents, which are covered by copyright, and control the
distribution of those documents, and the creation of physical
objects from them, but their protection is unlikely to extend
(depending on the jurisdiction) to the copying the physical object


Research On Open Innovation

Creative Commons And Design Rights

Creative Commons licensing is fundamentally based on

copyright, and there is little clarity or consensus on how they
would operate in relation to design rights across the myriad
different jurisdictions and types of right. Those designers
operating purely in the realm of copyright will find that there is
already an existing structure of support in terms of Creative
Commons licences and associated communities. Where other
forms of intellectual property impinge, the world is less
developed. The Creative Commons licences are arguably
sufficiently broadly drafted to cover unregistered design in certain
circumstances, but because they were not drafted with design
rights in mind, it cannot be assumed that the copying of a threedimensional object will automatically fall within its scope.
Patents are specifically excluded from Creative Commons
licenses: this, a designer can appear to be offering a design on an
open basis using a CC license, but still withhold patents rights
necessary for its manufacture or sale.



Research On Open Innovation


Andrew Katz has practised technology law for 20 years, and

has been at Moorcrofts in the UK's Thames Valley for 14 of those.
He is a Fellow of the Open Forum Academy and Free Software
Foundation Europe and visiting lecturer on Free and Open Source
Software at Queen Mary, University of London. He has lectured
on open issues in London, Paris, New York, Boon, Seoul,
Helsinki, Stockholm, Mangalia (Romania), Brussels, Amerdam,
Barcelona, Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge. He is on the core
drafting team of the CERN Open Hardware licence. He acts for
some of the worlds leading free and open source software
companies and projects. Andrew has more recently been involved
in the rapidly expanding fields of open data and open hardware,
and as well as speaking on legal issues at the Open Hardware
Summit in New York in 2012, he co-opened the 2014 Open
Hardware and Data Conference in Barcelona (the worlds fir
legal conference specialising in open hardware and data).
Andrew is married with two children and lives in Oxfordshire.
Hes heavily involved in both the Oxford tech and music scenes
and is passionate about live music: the grottier the venue, the
better. He ill codes occasionally, mainly Javascript and Python,
although his favourite computer language will always be Pascal.